The High Court in Accra has been drawn into a sharp legal contest between the prosecution and defence in the ongoing criminal trial involving Bernard Antwi Boasiako, as arguments intensify over delays and procedural compliance.
On Thursday, the Deputy Attorney-General, Justice Srem-Sai, pressed the court to convict the accused persons, citing what he described as persistent disregard for court orders.
He told the presiding judge, Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, that the conduct of Wontumi and his co-accused was “unbelievable” and calculated to stall proceedings unnecessarily.
The case centres on allegations that Wontumi and his company, Akonta Mining, unlawfully assigned mineral rights without the required approval and facilitated illegal mining activities. Both the businessman and the company have pleaded not guilty. Meanwhile, a second accused person, Kwame Antwi, is currently on the run.
When the matter was called on April 20, 2026, for a Case Management Conference, the prosecution argued that the accused had twice failed to comply with explicit court directives to file witness statements if they intended to mount a defence.
According to Dr. Srem-Sai, the first directive was ignored in favour of a late application seeking a stay of proceedings—an application that was subsequently dismissed.
He noted that even after the court gave a fresh deadline of April 14, 2026, the accused again failed to file the required documents. In his view, this pattern demonstrated a clear unwillingness to defend the case, leaving the court with what he described as “only one option”—to proceed to conviction.
However, lead defence counsel, Andy Appiah-Kubi, strongly opposed that position. He explained that the defence had filed a fresh application for a stay of proceedings at the Court of Appeal following the earlier setback at the High Court.
He argued that notice of this application had already been served on the High Court registry on April 16, 2026, and that its existence justified their decision not to file witness statements at this stage.
According to him, continuing proceedings while the application is pending could prejudice the rights of the accused. He maintained that the High Court had the discretion to pause the trial and described the prosecution’s call for immediate conviction as misguided.
He further pointed out that the accused persons were exercising their constitutional rights and remarked that the pace of the trial had been unusually fast by local standards.
In her ruling, Justice Kocuvie-Tay acknowledged the arguments from both sides but made it clear that the mere filing of an application at the appellate level does not automatically halt proceedings at the High Court.
She stressed that due process must still be followed, regardless of any parallel legal steps taken by the defence.
Drawing on precedent, she referred to the Ato Forson trial to illustrate that a trial court may continue proceedings until a higher court issues a directive to the contrary.
She added that several legal authorities support the position that the High Court retains jurisdiction in such circumstances.
The judge ultimately rejected both the prosecution’s request for immediate conviction and the defence’s plea for an adjournment pending the outcome at the Court of Appeal.
She indicated that while the High Court would respect any future ruling from the appellate court, it would not suspend proceedings in anticipation of that decision.
As a result, the court has, for the second time, directed the accused persons to file their witness statements if they intend to rely on any witnesses.
A new deadline of May 5, 2026, has been set, with the next Case Management Conference scheduled for May 7, 2026.
