The High Court in Accra has adjourned to Thursday, October 29, a motion filed by former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu–Boahene and his co-accused, challenging passages in the prosecution’s written submissions that they say misrepresent evidence presented during their trial.
The application, filed on October 19 through their lawyer, Samuel Atta Akyea, asks the court to strike out specific portions of the prosecution’s response to their submission of no case to answer. The applicants argue that the disputed statements are either unsupported by the trial record or inconsistent with the testimony of prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence admitted in court.
At the hearing on Monday, October 26, the judge indicated that 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 the hearing.
The motion was brought by Adu-Boahene, Angela Adjei Boateng and Advantage Solutions Limited. It is separate from their reply challenging the prosecution’s legal arguments against their submission of no case to answer. While the reply contests the prosecution’s position that the accused persons should be called upon to open their defence, the motion seeks the removal of passages they contend inaccurately describe the evidence.
Applicants identify six areas of dispute
In an affidavit supporting the application, Adu-Boahene outlines six categories of statements in the prosecution’s written submissions that the applicants say do not reflect the evidence presented at trial.
One concerns the prosecution’s claim that two witnesses testified that a purchase agreement and an invoice relating to a cyber-defence system were not genuine. The applicants dispute this account, arguing that neither witness gave the testimony attributed to them regarding 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 prosecution 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 refer to her explanation that she could not determine which invoice contained the error, arguing that the testimony does not support the prosecution’s characterisation of the documents as forged.
Another contested passage concerns whether the National Signals Bureau had a contract with ISC Holdings Limited for the cyber-defence system. According to the affidavit, the second witness did not testify that the institution had no such contract. The applicants instead point to her evidence that she processed and paid an invoice covering delivery and acceptance milestones for the system.
Dispute over witness’s knowledge of accounts
The motion also challenges the prosecution’s interpretation of the second 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 should not be interpreted as evidence that the institution itself was unaware of the company or its account.
A further objection relates to the prosecution’s description of a March 2020 invoice as covering a one-time purchase. The applicants cite 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 also disputes 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 maintain that the third prosecution witness did not give evidence to that effect. They instead refer to testimony identifying ISC International Security Consultants Holdings Limited as the beneficiary of two exhibits, with remittance information linked to the procurement of a cyber-defence system.
Applicants challenge use of building photograph
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 Adu-Boahene’s mother for a building project in Kumasi.
The applicants say Exhibit H is a photograph of a building and contains no banking or accounting information to establish the alleged payments.
Their affidavit also cites the fourth prosecution witness as acknowledging that there were “no direct payments from accounts analysed towards Dorchester Heights”, identified in the motion as the building in Kumasi.
The applicants contend that the prosecution cannot introduce facts unsupported by evidence through written submissions, describing the disputed passages as an attempt to give evidence from the bar. They are asking the court to remove the passages on the grounds that they allegedly misrepresent the trial record.
Prosecution maintains evidence supports its case
In its October 9 submissions, signed by Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai, the prosecution maintained that sufficient evidence had been presented to establish the essential elements of the charges.
The prosecution argued that its case rests substantially on documentary evidence that was not undermined during cross-examination and urged the court to dismiss the accused persons’ submission of no case to answer.
Those submissions were filed before the 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’s hearing does not, in itself, establish the applicants’ claims. The court is expected to hear the motion on Thursday, October 29, ahead of its scheduled November 5 ruling on whether Adu-Boahene and his co-accused have a case to answer.
Story by Freedom Etsey Lavoe
