An attempt by the Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party, Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, to halt his criminal proceedings following an interlocutory appeal to challenge an order of the High Court for him to open his defence in the galamsey charges over the Samreboi Concession has been dismissed.
The Court, presided over by Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, ruled that the Application for Stay of Proceedings had no merit and same was dismissed.
“I have also listened to the legal submissions of Counsel for Accused Persons and the Republic,” the Court said. “After a careful consideration of the applicable laws and the totality of the evidence before the court, I find no merit in the application and same is dismissed,” the Court ruled.
Following the dismissal of the Application, the presiding judge has also directed him to file his Witness Statement, if he so desired, by April 14, 2026, for Case Management Conference to be conducted on April 20, 2026.
On March 16, 2026, the High Court dismissed Chairman Wontumi’s submission of no case and ordered him and his Akonta Mining Limited (third accused) to open their defense and answer to the six charges over the Samreboi concession.
Dissatisfied with the order, Wontumi and his lawyers indicated they have filed an interlocutory appeal to challenge the order made by the trial Court at the Court of Appeal. Consequently, on Thursday, March 26, his lawyers filed at the High Court a motion for Stay of Proceedings pending a determination of that interlocutory appeal against the ruling.
Motion
His lawyers, led by Andy Appiah-Kubi, have argued that an irreversible prejudice would be caused to their client if the proceedings are not stopped as he pursues an appeal challenging the High Court’s order for him to open his defence. Counsel has also told the Court that their interlocutory appeal has exceptional grounds for success.
“We are saying that this interlocutory appeal raises substantial arguments of law concerning the correct legal standards applicable to the submission of no case stage,” Counsel submitted to buttress his first ground.
Again, Counsel said, if the Applicants (Wontumi and Akonta Mining) are compelled to open their defence to give evidence before the interlocutory appeal is determined, the appeal would be rendered entirely nugatory. He said that will inflict an irreversible prejudice on the accused persons should they be compelled to testify before the Appeal is heard.
Counsel also submitted that the outcome of the ruling, where the Court said there was a rebuttal presumption of innocence, means the issues of the Constitutional rights of the Applicant are at stake and, therefore, a Stay of Proceedings is necessary to protect the fundamental constitutional rights to appeal.
Lawyer Appiah-Kubi also submitted that the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favours the grant of stay and that the Applicants stand to suffer irreversible prejudice if compelled to open their defence before the appeal is determined.
“The prosecution, on the other hand, suffers no prejudice from a temporary stay, and the appeal will be expeditiously heard,” Counsel said to buttress his claim.
“It will be contrary to the interest of Justice and proper administration of justice to compel an accused person to open his Defence in a proceedings whose legal challenges are under scrutiny.
“The High Court has an inherent jurisdiction and a duty in ensuring that the grant of a stay in this circumstance is consistent with the overriding objective of ensuring a fair trial and upholding the rule of law.”
AG’s opposition
Prosecution, led by Deputy Attorney General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, argued in opposition to the Application on the point of law where he argued that the application was an attempt to delay the trial.
He submitted that, for a Stay of Proceedings to be granted, an exceptional circumstance would have to be exhibited, but in the application before the court, no such exceptional circumstance is exhibited for the Court to grant it.
While pointing to decided cases, he said the Court has also been consistent in stating that there is no exceptional circumstance if the ruling and the proceedings to be stayed would be quashed on appeal.
He said, Counsel for the Applicants has spent time arguing that the appeal stands a very high chance of success; “we do not agree.”
In the present case, Dr. Srem-Sai said, the Court dismissed the submission of no case, which simply means that the prosecution has brought sufficient evidence to warrant the accused person to offer an explanation in its defense.
Contrary to the claim on the other side of the bar, dismissing the submission of no case is not equal to compelling an accused person to self-incrimination; it is rather an opportunity given to the accused person, if he so wishes, to keep quiet and allow the Court to pass judgment.
The Deputy AG further submitted that, a proper understanding of the dismissal of no case should result in an argument against self-incrimination, and he pointed to the Republic vs. Stephen Kwabena Opuni, an unreported (suit 8.3/32/2019) ruling of the Court of Appeal, where the Court, through Justice Amadu Tanko JA, as he then was, provided a guide as to what constitutes exceptional circumstances.
He said, the propriety of the charges, whether it is lawful or unconstitutional, has not been brought into question in respect of the propriety of the charges, and that It is not a sufficient ground to apply for a stay of proceedings.
It was his submission that, the Court decided on submission of no case on March 16 and offered the accused person an opportunity to open his defence if he so wished, adjourning the case to March 26.
Counsel obtained the ruling on March 18, yet chose to file his application for stay on the very day he had to show up and the stay application has so far succeeded in having an extra week to delay the court proceedings.
He said no exceptional circumstances have been made by the Applicants and prayed for the Court to dismiss the application for stay.
End
