The High Court in Accra has postponed until Thursday, October 29, a hearing on an application challenging the prosecution’s written submissions in the trial of former National Signals Bureau Director General Kwabena Adu Boahene. The application alleges that the prosecution inaccurately represented witness testimony and documentary evidence in opposing the accused persons’ submission of no case to answer.
Filed on October 19, the motion asks the court to expunge specific passages from the prosecution’s response on the grounds that the statements allegedly lack support in the evidence presented during the trial.
At the hearing on Monday, October 26, the presiding judge explained that the case docket was at his residence and that he had only become aware of the application that morning.
The Attorney General’s Office, which was reportedly served with the motion on October 19, had not submitted a formal response by the time proceedings took place on Monday.
Thursday’s hearing is expected to precede the court’s scheduled November 5 decision on the substantive submission of no case to answer, which will determine whether the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to require the accused persons to open their defence.
Adu Boahene, Angela Adjei Boateng and Advantage Solutions Limited initiated the proceedings through their lawyer, Samuel Atta Akyea. Alongside the application, they submitted a separate reply contesting the prosecution’s opposition to their no case submission.
Although both documents challenge the prosecution’s position, they serve distinct legal purposes. The reply disputes the prosecution’s legal arguments for requiring the accused persons to defend themselves, while the motion seeks the removal of particular passages allegedly inconsistent with the testimony and documents admitted during the trial.
Six Areas of Disputed Evidence
In an affidavit supporting the application, Adu Boahene identifies six categories of statements which the applicants maintain either contradict the evidence on record or attribute testimony to witnesses that they did not give.
The first dispute concerns the prosecution’s claim that two witnesses testified that a purchase agreement and an invoice relating to a cyber defence system were inauthentic.
The applicants insist that neither witness gave the testimony attributed to them regarding the purchase agreement, which was admitted in evidence as Exhibit X. They point out that the second prosecution witness was discharged on April 27, 2026, whereas the agreement was tendered through the fourth prosecution witness on June 22.
Regarding the contested invoices, the affidavit quotes the second witness as telling the court, “My Lord, it is likely one will be an error.”
The affidavit further refers to the witness’s subsequent explanation that she could not establish which of the invoices contained the mistake. The applicants argue that these statements do not justify the prosecution’s description of the documents as forged or fabricated.
The second allegation concerns the prosecution’s assertion that the second witness testified that the National Signals Bureau had no contractual relationship with ISC Holdings Limited for the supply of a cyber defence system.
According to the affidavit, the witness did not give such testimony. Instead, the applicants maintain that she acknowledged processing and making payment on an invoice covering delivery and acceptance milestones associated with the system.
The motion also contests the prosecution’s interpretation of the witness’s knowledge of an operations account. The applicants say she repeatedly explained that the scope of her security clearance prevented her from accessing information about certain national security accounts and activities.
They argue that her limited access to such information cannot reasonably be interpreted as proof that the National Signals Bureau itself had no knowledge of the company or its account.
A further point of disagreement concerns a March 2020 invoice, which the prosecution allegedly characterised as relating to a one time purchase. The applicants cite testimony in which the witness acknowledged that the amount under discussion did not constitute the entire payment and that another invoice associated with the same acquisition had also been processed.
The fifth area of contention concerns the prosecution’s assertion that the entire GH¢49.1 million was spent on the accused persons, their friends, associates and relatives, without any portion being applied towards an official or authorised purpose.
The applicants contend that the third prosecution witness did not provide evidence supporting that sweeping claim. Instead, they refer to testimony identifying ISC International Security Consultants Holdings Limited as the beneficiary named in two exhibits, with remittance details indicating that the transactions related to the procurement of a cyber defence system.
The sixth complaint challenges the prosecution’s reliance on Exhibit H to support an allegation that money was transferred from Advantage Solutions Limited’s bank account to Adu Boahene’s mother for a construction project in Kumasi.
According to the application, Exhibit H is a photograph of a building and contains no banking records, transaction details or accounting information demonstrating that the alleged payments were made.
The applicants also cite testimony from the fourth prosecution witness, who reportedly acknowledged that there were “no direct payments from accounts analysed towards Dorchester Heights”, the property identified in connection with the Kumasi construction project.
Applicants Seek Removal of Allegedly Misleading Submissions
The applicants maintain that lawyers cannot introduce facts unsupported by evidence through written legal arguments, a practice commonly described as giving evidence from the bar. They therefore want the disputed passages removed, arguing that their continued inclusion could present an inaccurate account of the evidence before the court.
The prosecution, however, maintains that its case is supported by sufficient evidence to establish the essential elements of the alleged offences.
In its written submissions dated October 9 and signed by Deputy Attorney General Dr Justice Srem Sai, the prosecution argued that substantial documentary evidence had been presented and had not been undermined by the defence during cross examination. It consequently urged the court to dismiss the accused persons’ submission of no case to answer.
Those submissions were filed before the applicants brought their October 19 motion and do not directly address the specific allegations raised in the application.
The absence of a formal response from the Attorney General’s Office as of Monday does not, by itself, establish that the applicants’ allegations are correct. The claims remain contested matters for the court to consider.
The High Court is expected to hear the application on Thursday, October 29, before delivering its scheduled November 5 ruling on whether the prosecution’s evidence is sufficient to require Adu Boahene, Adjei Boateng and Advantage Solutions Limited to present a defence.
