By Issah Olegor
A dramatic development has emerged in the long-running criminal trial involving Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, after his lead counsel, Andy Appiah-Kubi, filed an application seeking to withdraw from the case just days before the court is scheduled to deliver its judgment.
The application, which is expected to be moved before Criminal Court 4 on Monday, introduces a new layer of uncertainty into a case that has attracted significant national attention because of the political profile of the accused and the wider debate surrounding illegal mining activities in Ghana.
According to information available from court proceedings, Appiah-Kubi will formally present his application and outline the reasons behind his decision to step aside from the case when the matter is called.
The contents of the application and the specific grounds for the withdrawal are yet to be publicly disclosed.
The development comes at a crucial stage of the trial, which has already concluded after both the prosecution and defence closed their respective cases.
The High Court had fixed July 3, 2026, as the date for judgment following months of witness testimony, legal arguments and cross-examinations.
A Case That Has Drawn National Attention
Chairman Wontumi and Akonta Mining Company Limited have been standing trial over allegations that mining activities were carried out on the company’s concession at Samreboi without the requisite approvals under the mining laws.
The Attorney-General accused Wontumi and the company of permitting unauthorized mining operations involving individuals identified as Henry Okum and Michael Gyedu Ayisi.
The prosecution maintained that the alleged activities occurred without ministerial authorization as required by law.
Throughout the proceedings, Chairman Wontumi consistently denied any wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty to all charges brought against him.
The trial became one of the most closely watched legal battles in recent years, particularly because it formed part of the government’s broader crackdown on illegal mining, commonly known as galamsey, which has dominated national discourse over environmental degradation and natural resource governance.
Key Moments During The Trial
One of the most significant moments in the proceedings came when prosecution witness Michael Gyedu Ayisi admitted under cross-examination that he had no documentary evidence proving that Chairman Wontumi had assigned the Samreboi concession to Henry Okum.
Ayisi told the court that his belief regarding the ownership and control of the concession was based largely on what he had been told by others.
He also acknowledged that he had never personally met Chairman Wontumi and had only seen him on television.
The defence, led by Andy Appiah-Kubi, repeatedly argued that the prosecution had failed to establish a direct link between Wontumi and the alleged unauthorized mining operations.
Counsel maintained throughout the proceedings that the state’s case lacked sufficient evidence to sustain the charges.
At one stage, the defence filed a submission of “no case to answer,” contending that prosecutors had failed to establish a prima facie case.
Although the court ultimately rejected that submission and directed the accused persons to open their defence, the legal team continued to challenge the prosecution’s evidence.
The defence also successfully drew attention to gaps in some witness testimony and questioned the absence of documentary evidence connecting Wontumi directly to some of the allegations.
Questions Over Timing
The decision by Appiah-Kubi to seek withdrawal has generated considerable speculation due to its timing. As both prosecution and defence have already concluded their cases, the matter is now awaiting only the court’s verdict.
Legal observers note that applications by counsel to withdraw at such an advanced stage of proceedings are relatively uncommon, especially after the close of evidence and with judgment already scheduled.
However, lawyers may seek leave from the court to withdraw for professional, ethical, personal or strategic reasons.
Whether the court will grant the application remains to be seen. If approved, questions may arise regarding legal representation for Chairman Wontumi during the judgment phase and any potential post-judgment proceedings, including appeals should they become necessary.
