Atta Akyea Denies Seeking Presidential Pardon for Wontumi

Samuel Atta Akyea, legal counsel for New Patriotic Party (NPP) Ashanti Regional Chairman Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, has denied reports that the defence team sought a presidential pardon for his client. According to the statement, no such request was made. The denial comes amid continued public interest in Wontumi’s legal case and follows earlier submissions by Atta Akyea that the matter involving Exim Bank should be treated as a civil dispute rather than a criminal one.

The report of a pardon request, had it been accurate, would have been significant. A presidential pardon is a serious constitutional instrument, typically sought after conviction or in circumstances where legal avenues have been exhausted. If a defence team were to seek one before or during an ongoing case, it would raise questions about the strength of their position and their confidence in the judicial process. Atta Akyea’s denial appears aimed at shutting down that line of speculation before it gains further traction, and at protecting his client’s legal posture.

Atta Akyea’s earlier argument — that the Exim Bank matter belongs in a civil court rather than a criminal one — suggests a defence strategy built on the nature of the dispute rather than on clemency. If the case is fundamentally about a financial obligation, he contends, then the appropriate remedy is recovery through civil proceedings, not criminal prosecution. That framing is consistent with his denial of any pardon request: a defence that believes it has a strong legal argument has little reason to seek executive intervention.

Public interest in the case remains high, in part because of Wontumi’s prominent political profile. As a regional chairman of the NPP, he is a figure of considerable influence, and any legal trouble he faces attracts attention from supporters and opponents alike. That scrutiny cuts both ways: it means the case will be watched closely for any sign of preferential treatment, and it also means that rumours and unverified reports can spread quickly, making prompt clarification essential for those involved.

For now, the denial stands, and the case will proceed through whatever legal channels are determined to be appropriate. Whether the matter is ultimately resolved in a civil or criminal forum will shape not only Wontumi’s fate but also the broader conversation about how financial disputes involving public figures are handled in Ghana. Atta Akyea’s response is a reminder that in high-profile cases, distinguishing fact from speculation is not just a legal necessity but a public one.