Legal practitioner and former Member of Parliament for Asante-Akim North Constituency in the Ashanti Region, Andy Appiah-Kubi, has officially withdrawn from representing New Patriotic Party (NPP) Ashanti Regional Chairman, Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, in an ongoing illegal mining-related case, citing dissatisfaction with the conduct of proceedings and what he describes as the court’s attitude towards him.
His latest departure marks another dramatic twist in a legal defence team that has seen significant changes over the past year.
Appiah-Kubi had previously stepped away from the case before returning to lead the defence, but his second withdrawal on Thursday June 11, has renewed questions about the direction of Wontumi’s legal representation.
Speaking to journalists, Appiah-Kubi explained that his decision was based on concerns outlined in an affidavit filed in support of a motion before the court.
“There are reasons why I’m withdrawing my services from this process as stated in our affidavit in support of the motion,” he said. “I must say that I’m disappointed with decisions of the court, and I’m disappointed with the attitude of the court.”
A major source of the lawyer’s frustration appears to stem from the court’s refusal to compel prosecutors to produce a document he considers critical to the case.
According to Appiah-Kubi, he had requested that the court direct the prosecution to provide copies of an alleged assignment that forms part of the issues under consideration.
However, the court dismissed the application instead of granting the order.
He argued that such a directive would have provided clarity and finality regarding the existence of the document.
“I expected the court to make that order for the prosecution to come and say that this is a copy of the assignment, or that they don’t have it at all,” he explained.
The lawyer noted that the defence’s current position that no such assignment exists is based largely on presumption arising from the prosecution’s inability to produce the document.
“We have to come to a conclusion that there is no assignment. So that conclusive position we have is based on presumptions, that since they could not provide the assignment, there is a presumption that it doesn’t exist,” he stated.
He maintained that a direct order from the court requiring the prosecution either to produce the document or formally declare that it does not exist would have settled the matter conclusively.
Appiah-Kubi also suggested that his relationship with the court had become strained to a point where his continued involvement could be detrimental to his client.
Asked whether withdrawing from the case served the interests of Chairman Wontumi, the lawyer said he believed a new legal representative would be better positioned to engage with the court without any perceived personal tensions.
“I think the court is getting personal with me as counsel,” he said.
He added that his departure could create an opportunity for another lawyer to present the defence’s arguments more effectively.
“My absence may warrant an engagement of a new counsel.
Probably a new counsel will be able to freely interact with the court for the court to understand the articulation of such counsel without referring such articulation to the person of the counsel.”
According to him, a fresh lawyer may find greater receptiveness from the court and thus better serve the interests of the accused.
Appiah-Kubi disclosed that Chairman Wontumi was unhappy with the decision to withdraw, but said he had advised his client that the move was necessary under the circumstances.
“He’s not happy, but I have also advised him that under the circumstances, I think it is the best,” he said.
The former MP explained that he no longer felt encouraged to perform at his highest level and believed it would be in his client’s best interest to seek alternative legal representation.
“Indeed, I’m not encouraged to perform my best, so I think it will be in the better interest of my client to engage new counsel who will be free in his mind.”
He expressed hope that a new lawyer would be able to build a better professional rapport with the court and ensure a fair hearing for the client.C
Appiah-Kubi urged judicial officers and legal practitioners to avoid personalising matters before the courts and instead focus on the impartial administration of justice.
“My final word is that, and I have always said it, let us not personalise interests in courts,” he stated.
He stressed that courts must remain institutions of law, equity and impartial adjudication.
“Let the courts be the courts of adjudication, the courts of law, the courts of equity without war.”
The lawyer, however, lamented what he described as unwarranted interventions during proceedings, saying such developments undermine confidence in the judicial process.
“It is unfortunate that I feel a sense of interventions in courts that are unwarranted,” he remarked.
With Appiah-Kubi’s withdrawal now formalised, attention shifts to who will assume responsibility for Chairman Wontumi’s defence in the high-profile case.
The lawyer indicated that his former client remains free to engage another legal practitioner, represent himself, or seek legal assistance through other available channels.
The latest development adds another chapter to an already turbulent legal battle that has witnessed changes in defence strategy, public disagreements among senior lawyers, and growing scrutiny over the conduct of proceedings in one of the country’s most closely watched cases.
By 1960news.com
