The Criminal Division 4 of the High Court in Accra has dismissed an application by lawyer Andy Appiah-Kubi seeking leave to withdraw his legal services as counsel for Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, and another accused person in the ongoing Samreboi illegal mining case.
The court, presided over by Her Ladyship Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, delivered the ruling on Monday, June 15, 2026 after hearing arguments from Appiah-Kubi and the Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, who raised a preliminary legal objection against the application.
In its ruling, the court held that the application was not supported by any legal authority or judicial precedent.
The court further observed that the motion had not been served on the accused persons, a requirement it considered fundamental in such circumstances.
According to the court, issues relating to legal representation in criminal proceedings are matters between a lawyer and a client and must be handled in accordance with established legal procedures.
The ruling means that Appiah-Kubi remains counsel on record for Chairman Wontumi and the third accused person as the criminal trial continues.
Preliminary Objection
The proceedings began when Appiah-Kubi rose to move his motion seeking leave to withdraw his legal services.
However, the Deputy Attorney-General immediately drew the court’s attention to a notice of preliminary legal objection filed on June 12, 2026.
Although Appiah-Kubi indicated that he had not been served with the objection, Dr Srem-Sai argued that service was not mandatory because the objection raised a pure point of law.
The court agreed that service was not strictly required in such circumstances, but nevertheless stood the matter down briefly and directed the registrar to serve both the court and counsel before proceedings resumed.
When the case was recalled, Dr Srem-Sai argued that the application was fundamentally incompetent.He submitted that there is no legal requirement in criminal proceedings for defence counsel to seek the court’s permission before withdrawing legal services.
According to him, a lawyer who intends to withdraw must notify the client, and the court has no jurisdiction to grant or refuse such a decision.
“The counsel for the accused persons is offering the court the power to grant or refuse his decision to withdraw, and that discretion is not within the jurisdiction of the court,” the Deputy Attorney-General argued, urging the court to strike out the motion.
He further contended that Appiah-Kubi lacked standing to file the application because he was not a party to the criminal proceedings and had failed to identify any rule of court authorising such an application by counsel.
Defence Response
In response, Appiah-Kubi maintained that he remained counsel on record for the first and third accused persons and that the court was entitled to be formally notified of his intention to withdraw.
He relied on a recent Supreme Court decision in the case involving Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Torkornoo and the Attorney-General, arguing that the apex court had emphasised the need for formal notice to be given to a court when legal representation is being withdrawn.
Appiah-Kubi further argued that his capacity and standing in the case stemmed from his recognised role as counsel for the accused persons, adding that his interest in the matter remained until his representation was formally terminated.
“The court reserves the right to know of the decision to withdraw such services,” he submitted.
However, Dr Srem-Sai countered that the Supreme Court decision cited by Appiah-Kubi related to civil proceedings governed by Order 75 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), which requires leave of the court before counsel may withdraw.
He argued that the present matter was a criminal case and that the civil procedure rule was therefore inapplicable.
Background
The application followed Appiah-Kubi’s public announcement that he intended to withdraw from representing Chairman Wontumi in the criminal prosecution involving alleged illegal mining activities linked to Akonta Mining.
The lawyer had cited concerns over the conduct of proceedings and expressed dissatisfaction with aspects of the court’s handling of the case.Despite those concerns, the court found that the application failed to meet the legal requirements necessary to warrant judicial consideration.
Following the ruling, the court maintained its existing timetable for the trial and directed all parties to file their final written addresses by June 24, 2026.
Judgment in the substantive case is expected to be delivered on July 3, 2026.
For more news, join The Chronicle Newspaper channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbBSs55E50UqNPvSOm2z
