The application, filed before Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, requests that the court reschedule the judgment currently set for July 3, 2026. According to Atta Akyea, the postponement is necessary to allow him adequate time to study the case and prepare written legal arguments after recently taking over the defence.

In court documents supporting the request, Atta Akyea explained that he was engaged to represent the first and third accused persons after their former lawyer withdrew from the matter during the final stages of the trial.

He stated that proceedings had reached a crucial point when the previous counsel ceased acting for the accused persons, leaving them without legal representation ahead of the judgment phase.

The lawyer noted that following the close of the defence’s case on June 3, 2026, the court adjourned the matter to July 3, 2026, for the delivery of judgment.

Atta Akyea argued that written submissions play a critical role in criminal trials, as they enable lawyers to draw the court’s attention to important legal principles and factual issues that may influence the final decision.

According to him, he promptly filed a notice of appearance after being retained and subsequently requested certified copies of the proceedings and all relevant court documents from the registrar.

However, he indicated that the requested records had not yet been provided at the time he swore the affidavit. He further explained that the registrar informed him that access to the court docket would be necessary to obtain copies of several important documents required for his review.

The former MP maintained that without access to the complete case record, he would be unable to properly assess the evidence, legal arguments and proceedings that have taken place throughout the trial.

“As counsel presently on record for the accused persons, it is necessary that I be afforded a reasonable opportunity to familiarise myself with the record and advise my clients appropriately,” he stated.

Atta Akyea further stressed that the criminal charges facing his clients carry serious consequences, making effective legal representation essential.

He argued that the verdict could significantly affect the accused persons’ freedom, reputation and legal rights, and therefore they should be afforded every opportunity to mount a proper defence.

The application also cites Article 19 of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing. Atta Akyea contends that this constitutional protection includes the right to competent legal representation throughout all stages of criminal proceedings, including the period leading up to judgment.

He warned that denying him sufficient time to review the case and file submissions would place his clients at a disadvantage, particularly as the prosecution team led by the Attorney-General is expected to submit detailed legal arguments in support of the state’s case.

“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 states.

Atta Akyea argued that fairness demands that the defence be granted a similar opportunity to present arguments challenging the prosecution’s case and demonstrating that the charges have not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

He emphasized that the request is not intended to delay proceedings unnecessarily but rather to ensure that he can effectively represent his clients.

According to him, granting a brief extension would not prejudice the prosecution. Instead, it would reinforce public confidence in the judicial process by ensuring that the accused persons receive full and effective legal representation before judgment is delivered.

The court is expected to determine whether the circumstances justify postponing the July 3 judgment date to allow the newly appointed lawyer time to obtain the necessary records, review the proceedings and prepare written submissions on behalf of Chairman Wontumi and the third accused person.