Atta Akyea Seeks Delay of Akonta Mining Judgment, Citing Need to Prepare Defence Properly
Lawyers for Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, also known as Chairman Wontumi, and Akonta Mining Limited are asking the High Court to postpone its scheduled July 3 judgment, arguing that newly appointed counsel Samuel Atta Akyea needs time to study the record and prepare final submissions in the illegal mining case.
By Boakye Stephen, Kumasi, Ghana | Reporting for Ghanaian News, Canada | June 25, 2026
A fresh legal move has been made in the criminal trial involving Bernard Antwi-Boasiako (Chairman Wontumi) and Akonta Mining Limited, with the defence filing an urgent application to defer the court’s expected July 3 judgment.
The motion was filed before Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay on June 23, 2026. It asks the High Court to push back the date set for judgment to allow newly engaged lawyer Samuel Atta Akyea sufficient time to review the case record and file written submissions on behalf of the accused.
The request follows the exit of the defendants’ previous lawyer, Andy Appiah-Kubi, who withdrew from the matter on June 11, 2026. According to the court documents, Appiah-Kubi cited dissatisfaction with the handling of proceedings as the reason for stepping away from the case, which he had handled since October 2025.
In an affidavit supporting the motion, Atta Akyea argued that the defence had already closed its case on June 3, after which the court adjourned to July 3 for judgment. He says the sudden transition in legal representation at such a decisive stage leaves the accused without adequate time to mount a proper final defence.
“The progression of this criminal trial should be a thorough perusal of the record of proceedings and other processes which should be the basis of a serious perusal, research and the filing of a credible and competent written submission,”he stated.
The defence also anchored its application on Article 19 of the 1992 Constitution, arguing that a fair hearing includes meaningful legal representation at every stage of a criminal trial, especially before judgment is delivered.
Atta Akyea further argued that the prosecution remains fully equipped, being led by the Attorney-General and his legal team, while the defence is still trying to access the materials necessary for proper preparation.
“The Republic is ably represented by the Hon. Attorney-General and his formidable team… who will put together a written submission ostensibly to hammer out the guilt of the accused persons,” the affidavit noted.
He told the court that although he has filed a notice of appearance and requested certified copies of the proceedings, those records have not yet been supplied by the registrar. Without them, he says, he cannot responsibly study the trial history and prepare a serious submission before judgment.
“The sole purpose of this application is to enable me to obtain and peruse the record of proceedings before judgment is delivered,” he said.
Atta Akyea insists the motion is not a tactic to stall the case, but rather an attempt to preserve fairness and strengthen confidence in the judicial process by ensuring the accused are not left exposed at the most critical moment of the proceedings.
The case itself centres on allegations that Akonta Mining Limited carried out illegal mining operations in the Tano Nimiri Forest Reserve at Samreboi without the necessary approval from the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources. Prosecutors say the company continued mining despite being refused authorisation in August 2022, with about thirteen hectares of land allegedly affected.
The trial has already heard evidence from both the prosecution and defence, and the court must now determine whether to grant the postponement request or proceed with judgment as planned on July 3.
Commentary | Boakye Stephen
This application is strategically important because it shifts the spotlight from the substance of the illegal mining allegations to the fairness of the trial process itself. Atta Akyea is effectively telling the court that a judgment delivered without giving new counsel adequate time to prepare could trigger questions about due process. If the court grants the request, the case will be delayed but the defence gains breathing room; if it refuses, any eventual conviction may face stronger arguments on appeal regarding fair-hearing rights.
