The Republic has formally concluded its case against former National Signals Bureau Director General Kwabena Adu Boahene, his wife Angela Adjei Boateng and their company, Advantage Solutions Limited, in the criminal proceedings concerning the alleged diversion of GH¢49.1 million belonging to the state.
Deputy Attorney General Dr Justice Srem Sai disclosed the development on Tuesday, September 8, 2026, following the completion of testimony and cross examination involving the prosecution’s fourth and final witness. The development marks a significant stage in the proceedings, as the State has now finished presenting the evidence upon which it relies to establish the allegations against the accused persons.
The prosecution maintains that Mr Adu Boahene employed what it describes as calculated methods to move the funds from a state controlled account into a private company account and subsequently facilitated the expenditure of the money through his wife and their business interests. The accused persons are facing several financial crime allegations, including stealing, money laundering and causing financial loss to the Republic.
Mr Adu Boahene, however, has disputed the prosecution’s interpretation of the transactions. His position, as presented during the proceedings, is that the money was not diverted for his personal benefit or for the advantage of his relatives, friends or associates, but was instead intended to facilitate the acquisition of a cybersecurity defence system for the state.
The prosecution relied on testimony from four principal witnesses to construct its case. The first witness, who worked as the family driver for Mr Adu Boahene and his wife, gave evidence concerning financial errands he allegedly undertook for the couple. He told the court about transporting substantial amounts of money from banking institutions to the accused persons as well as to individuals connected to them.
The second prosecution witness, who served as the Head of Finance at the state institution from which the money was allegedly taken, explained the organisation’s financial controls and procurement procedures, particularly those governing the acquisition of cybersecurity equipment.
According to the prosecution, the witness informed the court that the names appearing on three cheques did not correspond with the bank account into which the funds were ultimately paid. He further stated that the institution had not authorised the purchase of the particular cybersecurity system allegedly cited by Mr Adu Boahene as the purpose for the payment.
The witness also told the court that the invoice number relied upon by Mr Adu Boahene related to another piece of equipment which the institution had previously acquired through an official procurement process. The account that received the three cheques, the witness reportedly said, was not an account belonging to the state institution, while officials were allegedly unaware of both the company and the account involved in the transaction.
The third witness, an individual who handled aspects of the personal financial and commercial affairs of Mr Adu Boahene and his wife, gave evidence concerning the alleged movement and expenditure of the funds through their company, other businesses, relatives and associates.
That witness also described the former NSB director’s dealings with financial institutions and told the court that one bank had submitted a suspicious transaction report concerning his activities before the account was subsequently closed. Evidence was additionally presented regarding the couple’s investments in property and other financial assets, together with cheques allegedly signed in advance by the accused persons.
Some of those cheques were reportedly used to make payments to construction workers involved in projects at properties in Accra and Asokore Mampong.
The fourth and final prosecution witness, Frank Marshall Cromwell, an investigator with the Economic and Organised Crime Office, presented documentary evidence relating to the disputed transactions. Among the exhibits were three cheques and accompanying deposit slips which the prosecution says facilitated the transfer of the GH¢49.1 million from the state account into a private company account.
The investigator also submitted corporate registration records, bank account opening documents, financial statements and other banking records concerning companies associated with the accused persons. Documents relating to the acquisition of landed properties were also presented to the court, alongside information concerning Mr Adu Boahene’s earnings as a public servant over roughly two decades and details of companies and assets allegedly connected to him.
During the final stages of the prosecution’s case, the EOCO investigator further told the court that a document allegedly relied upon by Mr Adu Boahene as evidence of the purchase of the cybersecurity system was not genuine. The investigator said forensic examination indicated that the document had been forged, pointing among other things to discrepancies involving company names, logos and the absence of essential contact and signatory details.
With the prosecution having completed its evidence, the defence is now preparing to challenge the sufficiency of the case through a submission of no case to answer. The Accra High Court has directed the accused persons’ legal team to file its submission by September 25, 2026, after which the Republic will have 14 days to respond.
Lead defence counsel Samuel Atta Akyea has questioned the period granted by the court, arguing that 14 days is insufficient for the defence to properly examine the extensive evidence and documentation presented throughout the proceedings. He nevertheless indicated that the legal team would work within the timeframe provided by the court.
The court has consequently adjourned the proceedings to November 5, 2026, when it is expected to determine whether the prosecution has established a sufficient preliminary case requiring the accused persons to open their defence. If the court concludes that the prosecution has failed to meet that threshold, the accused persons could be acquitted and discharged at that stage. However, should the court find that a sufficient case has been established, the accused persons will be required to respond to the allegations and present their defence.
