Lead defence counsel Andy Appiah-Kubi has applied to withdraw his representation for Bernard Antwi Boasiako in a high-profile criminal prosecution. This application comes at a critical moment: the trial in The Republic v. Bernard Antwi Boasiako & 2 Others, also known as the Samaraboi / Akonta Mining case, has concluded, and the court is ready to deliver its final judgment.
The Attorney-General is raising preliminary legal objections to block Mr. Appiah-Kubi’s exit. This move is significant because it happens just as the court is poised to rule. Public attention has focused on this legal battle due to its timing and the implications for the Ghanaian criminal justice system.
This situation fits into a broader pattern where procedural maneuvers can impact high-stakes legal outcomes in Ghana. The case involves an important figure, Bernard Antwi Boasiako, often referred to as Chairman Wontumi. Such developments can delay justice and affect public confidence in legal processes.
Rules governing lawyer withdrawals are detailed in the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32), and the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules, 2020 (L.I. 2423). These rules state that a lawyer cannot simply abandon a client without “good cause.” Rule 85(1) specifically notes that a lawyer must not withdraw unless there is a valid reason. Even with good cause, Rule 85(2) requires the lawyer to formally notify the client.
The court holds ultimate authority over such withdrawals. Rule 87(4) explicitly states that a lawyer must continue representation if ordered by the court. Justice Samson Lardi Ayenini, a legal expert, suggests that the Attorney-General's objections challenge both the timing and legitimacy of this withdrawal attempt. Observers within the legal community often view such last-minute applications as tactical efforts. The immediate goal is likely to “arrest” the judgment, pushing the final verdict past the upcoming legal vacation. This strategy could buy the defence several months of delay.
If the judge denies the withdrawal request, the situation presents a paradox. Such a refusal could potentially backfire, creating an avenue for further delays. The accused client, however, has a constitutional right to terminate a lawyer’s services at any time. If Bernard Antwi Boasiako decides to discharge his counsel, the court would have to grant him time to appoint a new lawyer. The new counsel would then need time to review the entire trial record and prepare a final written address.
Delivering a criminal judgment without allowing a newly appointed counsel to submit a final address would be highly irregular. It could lead to claims that the accused was denied a fair trial. Furthermore, if the judge denies the withdrawal, the defence could appeal this decision, or petition the Chief Justice. Such actions could lead to the judge’s recusal or replacement if misconduct is found, effectively delaying the main judgment for a prolonged period. This outcome would achieve the very delay the defence might have sought from the outset.