The Accra High Court has deferred the trial of former National Signals Bureau Director General Kwabena Adu Boahene and his wife, Angela Adjei Boateng, to August 25, 2026, as the Supreme Court prepares to determine an application seeking to prevent the lower court from continuing the proceedings during the ongoing legal vacation.
The injunction application, which is scheduled for hearing before the Supreme Court on Thursday, August 20, seeks an order restraining the High Court from conducting the trial during the vacation period. Although the mere filing of such an application does not automatically suspend proceedings, High Court Justice Francis Apangabuno Achibonga said he was reluctant to advance a case when a superior court had been specifically invited to consider whether the proceedings should be halted.
The case came before the court on Monday, August 17, with Peter Osei Asamoah appearing on behalf of the substantive defence lawyer, Samuel Atta Akyea. Mr Osei Asamoah requested an adjournment, explaining that Mr Atta Akyea had formally notified the court on August 14 that other professional responsibilities made it difficult for him to attend during the legal vacation.
According to the defence, the request was intended to safeguard the accused persons’ constitutional entitlement to effective legal representation. Counsel maintained that proceeding without the substantive lawyer could potentially compromise the ability of the accused persons to receive adequate representation throughout the trial.
The Deputy Attorney General, Dr Justice Srem Sai, however, opposed the application and urged the court not to grant the adjournment. He contended that the explanation provided by Mr Atta Akyea was substantially identical to the reason contained in correspondence sent to the Chief Justice and failed to establish why other members of his legal team could not appear on behalf of the accused persons.
Dr Srem Sai further reminded the court that it had previously directed that the proceedings should continue during the legal vacation. He argued that lawyers appearing before the court could not unilaterally determine the timetable of a criminal trial and urged Justice Achibonga to reject the defence request.
The defence subsequently brought the pending Supreme Court application to the judge’s attention, shifting the focus of the proceedings from the availability of counsel to the broader question of whether the High Court should continue while the superior court considers the injunction request.
Mr Osei Asamoah explained that the application before the Supreme Court expressly seeks to restrain the High Court from conducting the trial during the legal vacation and is scheduled to be heard on August 20, only four days after Monday’s sitting.
He was careful to clarify that the defence was not suggesting that the Supreme Court had already issued an order preventing the High Court from proceeding. Instead, he asked Justice Achibonga to temporarily suspend the trial until the Supreme Court had reached a determination on the injunction application.
The prosecution rejected that position, maintaining that the existence of an injunction application did not strip the High Court of its lawful jurisdiction to hear the case.
Dr Srem Sai argued that an injunction has legal effect only after a court has actually granted the requested order. Until such a decision is made, he maintained, there was no judicial directive preventing the High Court from continuing with proceedings.
The Deputy Attorney General also questioned the procedural route adopted by the defence, arguing that challenges concerning the propriety of proceedings before a lower court would ordinarily be addressed through established judicial review mechanisms, including applications for certiorari or prohibition, rather than relying solely on an injunction application.
In his ruling from the bench, Justice Achibonga declined to postpone the case until the next legal term. He explained that such a decision would effectively push the trial into October and would undermine the purpose of his appointment as a vacation judge.
The judge additionally observed that the absence of Mr Atta Akyea did not necessarily make it impossible for the accused persons to be represented, since other lawyers within his firm could potentially undertake the responsibility.
However, Justice Achibonga adopted a more cautious position regarding the pending Supreme Court application.
While accepting the prosecution’s argument that simply filing an injunction does not automatically suspend proceedings, the judge emphasised the need for a lower court to exercise restraint where a superior court has been asked to determine whether the lower court should continue with the matter.
Justice Achibonga consequently held that, given the circumstances, he was not prepared to proceed with the trial while the Supreme Court application remained unresolved. The case was therefore adjourned to August 25, 2026, at 9:30 a.m.
The proceedings involve allegations that GH¢49.1 million earmarked for the procurement of a cyber defence system was unlawfully diverted.
Mr Adu Boahene has pleaded not guilty to charges including defrauding by false pretences, wilfully causing financial loss to the state, using public office for personal gain and obtaining public property by false pretences.
His wife, Angela Adjei Boateng, has likewise denied the allegations against her. She is facing charges including allegedly facilitating the use of public office for personal gain, conspiracy to commit money laundering and money laundering.
Neither accused has been convicted of the allegations, and the charges remain matters for determination by the court.
The latest development means attention now turns to the Supreme Court, where the injunction application is expected to be heard on August 20, 2026. The outcome of that application could determine whether the High Court resumes the trial on August 25 or whether further legal proceedings alter the timetable of the case.
