The Accra High Court has struck out an application by lawyer Andy Kwame Appiah-Kubi, which sought leave to withdraw his legal services for the Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, and Akonta Mining Limited in the ongoing trial over mining activities on a concession at Samreboi without the required authorisation and other offences under the Minerals and Mining Act and the Forest Protection laws.
The court held that the application was alien to criminal procedure and that there was no legal requirement for a lawyer in a criminal trial to seek leave of the court before withdrawing representation for a client.
In striking out the application as incompetent, the court said the matter was one between counsel and his clients and did not require judicial approval.
The court further extended the date for filing of written addresses, if they wish to, from June 17, 2026, to June 24, 2026.
Preliminary objection
The ruling followed a preliminary legal objection raised by the Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, after Mr Appiah-Kubi moved a motion seeking leave to withdraw legal services for the first and third accused persons.
In court on Monday (June 15), Mr Appiah-Kubi told the court: “We have a motion before you seeking leave to withdraw legal services for A1 and A3. I move in terms of the motion paper and the supporting affidavit.”
However, Dr Srem-Sai informed the court that the prosecution had filed a notice of preliminary legal objection on June 12, 2026.
When Mr Appiah-Kubi indicated that he had not been served with the objection, the Deputy Attorney-General argued that service was unnecessary because the objection raised purely legal issues.
The court agreed and briefly stood down the proceedings to enable the registrar to serve the process on counsel.
Prosecution’s case
Dr Srem-Sai contended that the application was unknown to criminal procedure.
“The principle of law as far as criminal trial is concerned is that a defence lawyer who wishes to withdraw services to an accused person must notify the accused person,” he submitted.
“There is no rule or legal requirement requiring a defence counsel in a criminal trial to seek leave from a judge before doing so.”
According to him, the application improperly invited the court to exercise a discretion it did not possess.
“The court of law functions only within its jurisdiction. Being an application, counsel for the accused is offering the court the power to grant or refuse his decision to withdraw. That discretion is not within the jurisdiction of the court,” he said.
He therefore prayed the court to strike out the application as incompetent.
Dr Srem-Sai further challenged Mr Appiah-Kubi’s standing to file the application.
“The question in respect of this ground is whether a person who is not an accused and for that matter not a party to the matter will file a motion for the court to grant him such a motion,” he said.
“Appiah-Kubi is not one of the accused persons in this case. He has not shown any rule of court under which such a stranger to the case will file an interlocutory application.”
Ruling
Delivering its ruling, the court upheld the prosecution’s objection and struck out the application.
The court held that there was no procedural requirement, rule of court or judicial precedent requiring a lawyer in a criminal trial to seek leave before discontinuing legal representation.
The application, the court said, was therefore alien to criminal procedure.
The court further observed that the issue was essentially between counsel and his clients and that no evidence had been placed before it to show that the accused persons had been formally notified to enable them prepare for the next stage of the proceedings.
It subsequently struck out the application as incompetent.
Background
On June 5, 2026, Mr Appiah-Kubi filed an application seeking leave to withdraw as counsel for Chairman Wontumi and Akonta Mining Limited.
In an affidavit supporting the application, he cited disagreements over procedural decisions taken during the trial and expressed concern that his disappointment with some of the court’s rulings could affect his ability to continue representing the accused persons with the objectivity and diligence expected of counsel.
