The Attorney-General (AG) has filed processes at the High Court to oppose the prayer by the lawyer for Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, for deferment of judgment in the Samreboi case.
This comes after Samuel Atta Akyea, the new lawyer for the accused persons, standing trial over an alleged assignment of mineral rights without prior permission but had closed their case, filed a motion asking for the July 3 judgment date to be postponed.
The application filed by Samuel Atta is praying to the Court to defer judgment in order to allow him to acquaint himself with all the proceedings and would be heard on June 29.
The High Court in Accra had fixed July 3 for judgment in the case in which Chairman Wontumi and Akonta Mining are facing six charges, including assignment of mineral rights without authorization.
Following the closure of evidence in the case on June 3, the Court directed that the parties file their final closing addresses by June 17 – if they so desired to assist the Court, which was subsequently revised to June 24.
However, on June 17, after the High Court had upheld the AG’s objection to then counsel for the accused withdrawing his legal services on grounds of jurisdiction and capacity, Andy Appiah-Kubi withdrew his legal services.
Following the withdrawal of his previous lawyer, Chairman Wontumi, in his “panic,” appointed Samuel Atta Akyea as the new lawyer, and the new counsel, Samuel Atta Akyea, is asking the Court to reschedule the judgment date to allow time to peruse the court proceedings.
But, the AG has opposed the action, and in an affidavit in opposition to the request of. Hv deposed to by Nana Ama Prempeh, a Senior State Attorney, said the Accused Persons had, on June 3, 2026, closed their case and the Court had adjourned for judgment on July 3.
The reply stated that the Accused Persons have been duly represented by legal counsel of their choice throughout the trial.
The withdrawal of legal services by the Accused Person’s counsel was voluntary, amicable, and, most importantly, not for cause.
The AG is further arguing that, under such amicable circumstances of legal service withdrawal, “the proper place to procure the records of and any brief or briefing on the case is the outgoing counsel and not the Court’s Registry.”
“The decision by counsel to, without cause, abandon the proper source of obtaining the records or brief of the case and to, rather, apply to the Court’s Registry is actuated by mala fides and a desire to frustrate the course of justice,”
The AG stated that counsel publicly announced his assumption of the Accused Persons’ brief on June 15, 2025, “but waited until June 22, 2026 – seven clear days later – before filing the notice of appointment” before the Court.
“The undue delay in taking a proper step to assume representation in the case is actuated by further mala fides and a desire to frustrate the course of justice.
“This is the proper case where this Court ought to exercise its discretion to summarily refuse the present application, as a grant thereof will constitute the Court’s endorsement of abuse of its processes and public ridicule of the justice system,” the AG stated.
Source: www.kumasimail.com
