In a move that raises questions about whether the defence is seeking to delay the inevitable, NPP Ashanti Regional Chairman Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, alias Chairman Wontumi, and his lawyers have launched a fresh legal offensive to portray the criminal case against him as a mere civil dispute.
Chairman Wontumi and his lawyers appear determined to take the Exim Bank prosecution on a detour, filing an application at the High Court seeking declarations that the case against him is civil in nature rather than criminal.
The application, which seeks to reframe the dispute over loans advanced to Wontumi Farms Limited, comes as the accused persons prepare to face five criminal charges, including defrauding by false pretence, two counts of uttering a forged document, money laundering and intentionally causing financial loss to a public body.
The timing and scope of the application raise the question of whether the defence is attempting to shift attention from the criminal allegations and prolong proceedings through a parallel legal battle over the character of the case.
Rather than allow the criminal proceedings to take their course, the defence is asking the court to pronounce on the civil nature of the underlying loan transactions and determine what it claims is owed to the first defendant by Exim Bank.
The lawyers are also seeking an order for an account of the loans advanced between January 16, 2018, and October 28, 2020, as well as a declaration that the collateral security and insurance cover attached to the loans are sufficient to discharge the outstanding debt.
They further want the court to direct the application of the collateral and insurance proceeds towards settling the debt, alongside costs, including lawyers’ professional fees on a full-indemnity basis.
But the central question remains: does a disagreement over loans and collateral automatically extinguish allegations of fraud, forgery, money laundering and financial loss to a public institution?
The answer cannot be supplied by the defence’s preferred characterisation of the case. It is a matter for the court to determine on the applicable law and the evidence before it.
Wontumi, Thomas Antwi-Boasiako and Wontumi Farms Limited are facing prosecution over allegations linked to an estimated GH¢30 million loss to Exim Bank.
The prosecution alleges that Wontumi and Thomas Antwi-Boasiako obtained approximately GH¢14.302 million from the bank in 2018 through false pretences. The charge sheet further alleges that the accused persons caused the bank to suffer losses amounting to GH¢30 million between 2018 and 2022.
These remain allegations to be determined by the court, and the accused persons are entitled to the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty.
However, the fact that the transactions involved loans does not, by itself, settle the separate question of whether criminal conduct was involved in securing or handling those facilities.
That distinction is at the heart of the prosecution’s case and makes the defence’s attempt to obtain a sweeping civil-case declaration a potentially consequential intervention in the proceedings.
Whether the application has any legal merit is for the court to decide. But it cannot, merely by being filed, erase the charges or establish that the prosecution has improperly criminalised a civil dispute.
The latest development follows the prosecution’s filing of an amended charge sheet, which prompted the adjournment of the case to October 13, 2026.
When the matter was called last Tuesday, Principal State Attorney Joshua Sackey informed the court that the prosecution had filed a new charge sheet and served copies on defence counsel.
He consequently asked the court to withdraw the charge sheet filed on May 15, 2026, and substitute it with the amended version filed on September 22, 2026.
“My Lady respectfully, we have filed a new charge sheet this morning, and we have given a copy of the charge sheet to counsel for the accused persons,” Mr Sackey told the court.
“We wish to withdraw the charge sheet, which we filed on May 15, 2026, and substitute the same with the charge sheet, which we filed on September 22, 2026,” he added.
The amended charge sheet retains the charge of uttering a forged document under Section 169 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), but identifies EPSONS GHANA LIMITED as the company whose pro-forma invoice was allegedly forged.
According to the prosecution, Wontumi allegedly used the invoice in 2017, knowing it was not genuine, to deceive Exim Bank officials and obtain GH¢4 million.
The amended particulars provide greater specificity about the document at the centre of that count. The prosecution’s allegations, however, remain subject to proof in court.
Counsel holding brief for Samuel Atta Akyea for the first and third accused persons, Nana Nti Ofori-Debrah, told the court he had only just received the amended charge sheet and needed time to examine it and consult the substantive counsel.
He therefore asked the court to defer the substitution of the charge sheet and the taking of pleas until the next adjourned date.
“Indeed, I have just received a copy of the new charge sheet. I am yet to peruse it and also show it to the substantive counsel,” he said.
“In the circumstance, I humbly pray that both the substitution and the taking of plea should be taken at the adjourned date not too remote from now,” he added.
The court adjourned the matter to October 13, 2026, at 10:30 a.m., when the accused persons are expected to take their pleas afresh.
The defence is entitled to examine the amended charges and challenge the prosecution through lawful procedures. But the growing procedural contest underscores why the court must carefully distinguish legitimate defence rights from applications that could unnecessarily prolong the determination of the case.