Samreboi case: How rejection of Appiah Kubi's withdrawal could offer Wontumi a potent legal weapon — Samson Lardi 

Legal and media practitioner Sampson Lardi Anyenini has asserted that the High Court's decision to reject lawyer Andy Appiah Kubi's attempt to withdraw from the Samreboi illegal mining case could inadvertently provide the defence with new legal options capable of delaying the proceedings.

In an affidavit supporting the application, the former Asante Akyem North MP said he had become disappointed by several decisions of the court and feared that the situation could affect his performance and ultimately the interests of his clients.

However, the High Court on Monday, June 15, dismissed Appiah Kubi's motion, ruling that it was not supported by any rule of court or judicial authority.

The court maintained July 3, as the date for judgment but extended the deadline for parties to file their written addresses to June 24.

In a social media post, Lardi Anyenini examined the legal implications of the court's ruling and the strategic choices available to New Patriotic Party (NPP) Ashanti Regional Chairman Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi.

He explained that under Ghana's legal framework, lawyers cannot ordinarily abandon clients without good cause and must comply with rules governing withdrawal from representation.

"The grand catch in the rules is that any attempt to step down is strictly 'Subject to these Rules and the direction of the Court'," he wrote.

According to him, the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules, 2020, gives courts significant authority in determining whether counsel should continue to represent a client.

He pointed specifically to Rule 87(4), which states that a lawyer must continue acting for a client if ordered to do so by a court.

However, he stressed that even if a court refuses a lawyer's request to withdraw, the client retains the constitutional right to terminate the lawyer's services and appoint new counsel.

According to him, such a development could compel the court to grant additional time for a newly appointed lawyer to study the record and prepare final submissions.

The legal practitioner suggested that the refusal of a withdrawal application could also open the door to fresh procedural challenges.

"Here is the ultimate legal irony: forcing the lawyer to stay on record could actually feed right into a potential grand defence scheme," he stated.

Lardi Anyenini argued that the defence could explore options including an appeal against the interlocutory ruling, applications alleging judicial bias, or a petition to the Chief Justice if grounds exist.

Such processes, he said, could potentially delay the delivery of judgment and create further legal battles before the substantive case is concluded.