Adu-Boahene challenges prosecution’s claims ahead of no-case ruling

The High Court in Accra has adjourned to Thursday, October 29, a motion by former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene and his co-accused challenging the prosecution’s written submissions over alleged misrepresentations of witness testimony and documentary evidence.

The application, filed on October 19, seeks to strike out specific passages in the prosecution’s response to the accused persons’ submission of no case to answer, which they argue are not supported by evidence presented during the trial.

At Monday’s hearing, October 26, the judge said the case docket was at his residence and that he had only become aware of the motion that morning.

The Attorney-General’s Office, which was reportedly served with the application on October 19, had not filed a formal response as of Monday.

Thursday’s hearing will precede the court’s scheduled November 5 ruling on the substantive submission of no case to answer.

Mr Adu-Boahene, Angela Adjei Boateng and Advantage Solutions Limited filed the motion through their lawyer, Samuel Atta Akyea. They have also filed a separate reply challenging the prosecution’s arguments for requiring them to open their defence.

While the reply contests the prosecution’s legal arguments, the motion seeks the removal of specific passages on the grounds that they allegedly misrepresent evidence presented during the trial.

In a supporting affidavit, Mr Adu-Boahene identifies six categories of statements in the prosecution’s submissions that the applicants contend contradict or lack support in witness testimony and documentary evidence.

One concerns the prosecution’s assertion that two witnesses testified that a purchase agreement and an invoice relating to a cyber-defence system were not genuine.

The applicants argue that neither witness gave the testimony attributed to them concerning the purchase agreement admitted as Exhibit X. They note that the second prosecution witness was discharged on April 27, 2026, while the agreement was admitted through the fourth witness on June 22.

On the disputed invoices, the affidavit quotes the second witness as saying, “My Lord, it is likely one will be an error.”

The applicants also cite her explanation that she could not determine which invoice contained the error, arguing that her testimony does not support the prosecution’s characterisation of the documents as forged or fabricated.

A second complaint concerns the prosecution’s assertion that the second witness testified that the NSB had no contract with ISC Holdings Limited for a cyber-defence system.

According to the affidavit, the witness gave no such evidence but acknowledged processing and paying an invoice covering delivery and acceptance milestones for the system.

The motion also challenges the prosecution’s interpretation of the witness’s knowledge of an operations account. The applicants say she repeatedly explained that her security clearance did not permit her to know about certain national security accounts and activities.

They argue that her testimony cannot support the broader assertion that the institution itself was unaware of the company or its account.

Another disputed passage describes a March 2020 invoice as covering a one-time purchase. The affidavit cites testimony in which the witness acknowledged that the amount under discussion was not the full payment and that another invoice relating to the same acquisition had been processed.

The application further challenges the prosecution’s assertion that the entire GH¢49.1 million was spent on the accused persons, their friends, associates and families, with none used for an official or approved purpose.

The applicants contend that the third prosecution witness gave no such evidence. Instead, they point to testimony identifying ISC International Security Consultants Holdings Limited as the beneficiary of two exhibits, with remittance information referring to the procurement of a cyber-defence system.

The sixth complaint concerns the prosecution’s reliance on Exhibit H to support an assertion that payments were made from Advantage Solutions Limited’s bank account to Mr Adu-Boahene’s mother for a building project in Kumasi.

Exhibit H is a photograph of a building. The applicants argue that it contains no banking or accounting information establishing the alleged payments.

They also cite the fourth prosecution witness as acknowledging that there were “no direct payments from accounts analysed towards Dorchester Heights”, the building identified as the Kumasi project.

Applicants seek removal of disputed passages

The applicants argue that introducing facts unsupported by evidence through written submissions amounts to giving evidence from the bar. They are asking the court to remove the disputed passages on the grounds that they allegedly misrepresent the trial record.

The prosecution’s October 9 submissions, signed by Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai, maintain that sufficient evidence has been presented to establish the essential elements of the offences.

The prosecution argues that its case rests substantially on documentary evidence that was not undermined during cross-examination and has urged the court to dismiss the submission of no case to answer.

Those submissions predate the motion and do not directly address its specific allegations.

The absence of a formal response from the prosecution as of Monday does not establish the applicants’ claims. The court is expected to hear the motion on Thursday before delivering its November 5 ruling on whether the accused persons have a case to answer.