Why Counsel Appiah-Kubi is withdrawing from the Wontumi mining case

Counsel for Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, and Akonta Mining Company Limited, Andy Kwame Appiah-Kubi, has applied to the High Court in Accra for leave to withdraw his legal services in the ongoing criminal case involving alleged illegal mining-related offences.

The application, filed before the High Court, Criminal Court 4, concerns the case titled The Republic v Bernard Antwi Boasiako @ Wontumi, Kwame Antwi (at large), and Akonta Mining Co. Ltd, with suit number CR/0004/2026.

A key reason for the withdrawal per his motion for withdrawal appears to be Mr Appiah-Kubi’s dissatisfaction with how procedural matters in the case have unfolded. He stated that there had been serious disagreements over procedural decisions, which, in his view, sometimes created mistrust between the prosecution, the defence, and the bench.

Mr Appiah-Kubi is thus asking the court for permission to cease acting as counsel for the 1st accused person, Bernard Antwi Boasiako, and the 3rd accused person, Akonta Mining Company Limited.

According to the affidavit in support of the application, Mr Appiah-Kubi stated that he has represented the two accused persons since filing his notice of appointment on October 28, 2025. He explained that, in the course of the proceedings, he filed an application requesting the prosecution to produce certain documents, including an alleged deed of assignment involving the accused persons, Henry Okum, and Michael Gyedu Ayisi.

He said those documents were important because they related to matters forming part of the prosecution’s case, including allegations connected to ministerial authorisation. However, according to him, the court dismissed the application even though the prosecution had not filed an affidavit in opposition and had not produced the alleged assignment.

Mr Appiah-Kubi further stated that after the prosecution closed its case, he filed a submission of no case to answer on behalf of the 1st and 3rd accused persons on February 18, 2026. The court, however, dismissed that application on March 16, 2026, and ordered the accused persons to open their defence.

The lawyer also disclosed that an appeal was filed against the ruling dismissing the submission of no case. A subsequent application for stay of proceedings was also filed, but according to the affidavit, that application was dismissed.

He further complained about the limited time given by the court for the filing of written addresses despite what he described as the “enormity of work” required to review the evidence on record and the annexures.

In a striking portion of the affidavit, Mr Appiah-Kubi said he was disappointed by various decisions of the court and did not want that disappointment to affect his professional performance or the fortunes of his clients.

He added that while he understood that counsel cannot expect to win every argument, his disappointment had affected his emotional and psychological balance, which he considered necessary for maintaining the level of performance required for the task ahead.

The lawyer also stated that he believed the interests of his clients would be better served if he withdrew from the case to allow other legal professionals to take over from where he would leave off.

The attached exhibit shows that, earlier in the proceedings, the defence had sought further disclosures from the prosecution. These included a deed of assignment or indenture involving the accused persons and Henry Okum or Michael Gyedu Ayisi, an agreement between Akonta Mining Company Limited and those persons, proof of ownership of ammunition in the custody of the Ghana Police Service, and any other relevant documents connected to the case.

The motion for withdrawal is expected to be moved before the High Court in Accra.

If granted, Mr Appiah-Kubi’s exit could mark a significant development in the case, given the stage of the proceedings and the lawyer’s concerns about disclosure, timelines, procedural decisions, and the broader atmosphere between the parties and the court.