Lawyer Andy Appiah-Kubi’s attempt to formally withdraw from the defence of Chairman Wontumi and Akonta Mining Limited through a court application suffered a setback on Monday, June 15, 2026, when Criminal Court 4 dismissed his motion seeking leave to cease acting for the first and third accused persons in Republic v Bernard Antwi-Boasiako & 2 Others.
The court held that no rule of court or judicial authority requires counsel in criminal proceedings to obtain leave before withdrawing legal services. It ruled that the decision to discontinue representation is a matter between lawyer and client and not one requiring judicial approval.
Preliminary Objection Upheld
Mr. Appiah-Kubi had filed a motion on notice seeking the court’s permission to withdraw from representing the first accused, Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, and the third accused, Akonta Mining Limited.
The application was met with a preliminary objection by Deputy Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, who argued that the motion was incompetent and that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it.
According to the prosecution, no provision governing criminal proceedings requires counsel to seek leave of the court before withdrawing from a case. Dr. Srem-Sai contended that the only obligation imposed on counsel is to notify the affected clients of the decision. He further argued that Mr. Appiah-Kubi, not being a party to the criminal proceedings, lacked the requisite locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.
The court agreed with the prosecution, holding that the criminal process is not designed to regulate a lawyer’s personal decision to terminate a professional relationship with a client.
Appiah-Kubi’s Argument
In defence of the application, Mr. Appiah-Kubi argued that, having entered appearance and remained counsel on record, it was proper for the court to be formally informed of his intended withdrawal through judicial processes.
He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Torkornoo v Attorney-General, contending that the apex court had underscored the need for formal notification where legal representation is withdrawn.
The prosecution, however, maintained that Order 75 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), which requires leave for withdrawal of counsel, applies exclusively to civil proceedings. It argued that the Supreme Court’s observations in the Torkornoo case were made in a civil context and could not be extended to criminal proceedings.
The court accepted that distinction and dismissed the motion.
The ruling draws an important distinction between civil and criminal procedure. Under Order 75 of C.I. 47, a lawyer in civil proceedings must obtain leave of the court before withdrawing from a case. No equivalent requirement exists in criminal proceedings.
Judgment Date Maintained
Despite the procedural dispute, the court indicated that the substantive case remains on course. Judgment in the Samreboi illegal mining case has been scheduled for July 3, 2026, while the deadline for filing written addresses, if any, has been extended to June 24, 2026.
The case arises from allegations that Akonta Mining Limited carried out mining activities within the Tano Nimiri Forest Reserve without the requisite approvals from the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources. Chairman Wontumi and Akonta Mining Limited have denied any wrongdoing.
What Lies Ahead
Monday’s ruling settles the question of whether judicial approval is required for counsel to withdraw in criminal proceedings. It does not, however, resolve Mr. Appiah-Kubi’s dissatisfaction with the conduct of the proceedings, which he had previously attributed to what he described as disappointment with the court’s attitude and handling of the case.
What the ruling makes clear is that if counsel ultimately decides to step aside, that decision must be effected through communication with his clients rather than through a motion seeking the court’s leave.
With judgment less than three weeks away, the Samreboi illegal mining trial is entering its final phase, bringing closer a determination of one of the country’s most closely watched prosecutions.
