Lawyer and former Member of Parliament for Asante-Akim North, Andy Appiah-Kubi, has withdrawn from representing Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, in the ongoing criminal proceedings involving Akonta Mining Limited.
Speaking on Thursday, June 11, 2026, Mr. Appiah-Kubi disclosed that he had formally communicated his decision to the court and filed an affidavit in support of his motion to withdraw from the proceedings before Criminal Court 4. He attributed his decision to deep dissatisfaction with the manner in which the case has been handled, stating that his disappointment centred on the attitude, record, and determinations of the court in managing the proceedings, a frustration he described as so profound that it compelled his exit from the matter.
The lawyer had earlier raised concerns regarding the court’s insistence on his personal appearance despite prior notification of conflicting engagements before other courts. He suggested that certain aspects of the proceedings raise questions concerning fairness and professional accommodation in the administration of justice.
Mr. Appiah-Kubi, however, dismissed suggestions that his withdrawal is connected to ongoing plea bargaining discussions in the separate Ghana Export-Import Bank (GEXIM) case involving Chairman Wontumi. According to him, the two matters are entirely distinct, and his decision affects only the Akonta Mining prosecution.
He further clarified that he remains counsel for Mr. Antwi-Boasiako in all his other legal matters, including the case concerning allegations of fraud against the state-owned bank.
The Republic’s case against Chairman Wontumi and Akonta Mining Limited arises from allegations that the company undertook mining activities within the Tano Nimiri Forest Reserve without obtaining the requisite approvals from the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources and other relevant state agencies. Both Mr. Antwi-Boasiako and Akonta Mining Limited have denied any wrongdoing.
Proceedings in the matter have been adjourned to June 16, 2026, for the continuation of the cross-examination of a prosecution witness.
The withdrawal of counsel at this stage has reignited discussions within legal circles regarding judicial case management, professional relations between the Bench and the Bar, and the mechanisms available to lawyers who perceive unfairness in proceedings before the courts.
Under Ghanaian law, an advocate who has entered an appearance for an accused person may withdraw from representation subject to compliance with procedural requirements and ethical obligations. Such withdrawal does not, by itself, bring criminal proceedings to a halt, provided the accused person is afforded the opportunity to secure alternative legal representation and the requirements of a fair trial are maintained.
Allegations touching on judicial impropriety or external influence are matters of considerable gravity. Article 125 of the 1992 Constitution guarantees the independence of the Judiciary and requires judicial power to be exercised free from interference or improper influence. Consequently, concerns raised by legal practitioners must be addressed through established constitutional and professional mechanisms to safeguard public confidence in the administration of justice.
What is clear is that the concerns Mr. Appiah-Kubi has chosen to air publicly will not dissipate with his departure. The trial continues, but so does the conversation about what fairness in the courtroom truly demands.
