Samuel Atta Akyea, the lead counsel for the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Ashanti Regional Chairman, Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, has explained why he was absent when the High Court delivered judgement to jail his client.

According to him, he had travelled to the United Kingdom to attend his daughter's graduation.

Speaking on JoyFM's Top Story on Tuesday, July 21, Samuel Atta Akyea said his absence was unavoidable and was based on both personal and legal considerations.

According to him, he had expected the trial judge to refer constitutional issues raised by the defence to the Supreme Court before proceeding with the case, making it unnecessary for him to be present in court at the time.

"It's very unfortunate because of the hard fact that if I should let you know how personal it was for me to join my daughter who was graduating in the UK, I didn't see how I could have absented myself," he said.

Mr Atta Akyea explained that the defence had intended to move a motion seeking a referral of constitutional questions to the Supreme Court, which he believed the trial court was obliged to make.

He argued that had the judge respected the hierarchy of the courts and the constitutional requirements governing such matters, the proceedings would not have advanced to the stage of judgement.

"There was a constitutional matter staring at the court in the face. And we wanted to move that motion, which I knew, if the judge would respect the hierarchy of the court and even the law, that reference should have been made, which would mean that I needn’t be around when a judgement is being pronounced," he stated.

Mr Atta Akyea rejected suggestions that he had abandoned his client at a critical stage of the trial.

"I had not left Ghana to sort of leave my client in that kind of predicament. I left Ghana on good measure that, indeed and in fact, my daughter was graduating, and I needed to be around," he said.

He has already indicated that the defence team is preparing to challenge the High Court's decision at the Court of Appeal, arguing that the trial was affected by several constitutional and procedural errors.