A-G ordered to reveal missing evidence in GHS49m Adu-Boahene trial
The criminal prosecution of former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene has been thrown into renewed controversy after the Court of Appeal ordered the Attorney-General to disclose critical documents and information that the defence says have been missing from the state’s case since the beginning of the trial.
The ruling, delivered unanimously by a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, has intensified scrutiny of the prosecution’s handling of evidence and raised fresh questions about whether all relevant materials connected to the alleged GH¢49.1 million transaction had been placed before the court.
The decision comes at a time when the high-profile trial has already generated significant public debate over the management of classified National Security funds, the procurement of a cyber defence system, and the extent of the prosecution’s disclosure obligations under Ghana’s law.
Court Steps Into Growing Disclosure Dispute
At the heart of the appeal was a complaint by Adu-Boahene and his wife, Angela Adjei-Boateng that prosecutors had failed to provide documents necessary for them to effectively challenge the allegations against them.
The defence argued that despite accusing the couple of involvement in the alleged diversion of public funds, the Attorney-General had not disclosed several records relating to banking transactions, National Security operations, and the cyber defence project that forms the basis of the criminal case.
After an earlier High Court ruling rejected many of those requests, the accused persons turned to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the refusal undermined their constitutional right to a fair trial.
Missing Pages Become Major Issue
One of the most striking aspects of the ruling concerns 88 pages of bank statements that the defence says were omitted from records supplied by the prosecution.
According to the Court of Appeal, the Attorney-General must now produce the missing pages from the Universal Merchant Bank account of Advantage Solutions Company Limited, a company that has featured prominently in the prosecution’s narrative.
The omission of such a large portion of banking records had become a major point of contention, with defence lawyers arguing that the incomplete disclosure prevented them from obtaining a full picture of the transactions being relied upon by the state.
Judges Demand Source of GH¢49.1 Million
Perhaps the most significant aspect of the ruling is the order requiring the prosecution to disclose the source of the GH¢49.1 million at the centre of the criminal proceedings.
Since the Attorney-General publicly announced the case, the prosecution has consistently maintained that the funds constituted public money that was unlawfully diverted.
However, the appellate court ruled that if the state claims knowledge of the origin of the funds, then that information must be disclosed to the defence.
The order is expected to have major implications because the precise source, purpose, and classification of the funds have remained among the most fiercely contested issues throughout the trial.
National Security Files Must Be Opened
The Court of Appeal also directed the Attorney-General to disclose files linked to the acquisition of the cyber defence system, including portions of documents compiled by the late National Security Coordinator Joshua Kyeremeh.
The judges further ordered disclosure of records connected to National Security accounts associated with Adu-Boahene’s period of service, although they limited the disclosure period to transactions dating from 2007 onward.
The ruling effectively compels the prosecution to open areas of National Security documentation that have remained largely inaccessible throughout the proceedings.
Cyber Defence Project Remains Under Spotlight
A major component of the prosecution’s case is the allegation that funds intended for a cyber defence system were improperly handled.
The defence has long argued that documents relating to the procurement, delivery, and operational deployment of the system are crucial to understanding the transactions being challenged by the state.
Although the Court of Appeal did not immediately grant all requests relating to confirmation of delivery and servicing arrangements involving Israeli firm ISC Holdings, the judges indicated that the defence could return with more precisely worded applications.
The court similarly left the door open for future applications concerning inspection of the alleged cyber defence infrastructure.
No Pause for the Criminal Trial
Despite granting substantial disclosure orders, the Court of Appeal refused to suspend the criminal proceedings.
The judges ruled that disclosure is a continuing obligation and that the trial should proceed while the Attorney-General complies with the court’s directives.
As a result, the prosecution must now continue presenting its case while simultaneously producing documents that the defence has been seeking for months.
Defence Declares Victory
Lead defence counsel Samuel Atta Akyea welcomed the ruling, describing it as a vindication of the defence’s position that prosecutors must provide all relevant evidence and cannot selectively disclose documents that support only one side of the case.
According to him, some of the materials ordered by the court could potentially support the innocence of the accused persons or challenge the factual basis of the allegations made against them.
He argued that the decision reinforces the constitutional protections guaranteed under Article 19 of the 1992 Constitution and strengthens the principle that criminal trials must be conducted fairly and transparently.
A Turning Point in the Trial
While the ruling does not determine whether Adu-Boahene and his co-accused are guilty or innocent, it represents one of the most consequential procedural developments since the case began.
Comments (0)