Adu-Boahene trial: Defence accuses prosecution of misrepresenting evidence, seeks to strike out submissions

Lawyers for the former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau (NSB), Kwabena Adu-Boahene, have filed an application at the High Court seeking to have portions of the prosecution's written submissions struck out over allegations that they contain statements and claims not supported by the evidence presented during the trial.

The application comes as the court prepares to determine whether Adu-Boahene and the other accused persons have a case to answer following the close of the prosecution's case.

In the motion filed on October 19, 2026, lead defence counsel Samuel Atta Akyea challenges aspects of the Deputy Attorney-General's written arguments opposing the accused persons' submission of no case to answer.

The defence alleges that the prosecution attributed statements to witnesses which they never made and relied on purported facts that could not be found in the court's records.

According to the accused persons, the disputed portions amount to an attempt to introduce new evidence through legal submissions rather than through witnesses subjected to examination in court.

Defence challenges claims about allegedly forged documents

One of the central issues raised in the application concerns Exhibits X and 11, which the prosecution is alleged to have described as forged or fabricated documents.

The defence disputes the suggestion that two prosecution witnesses, identified as PW2 and PW4, gave evidence establishing that the documents were forged.

In support of its position, the defence points to the sequence in which the evidence was received.

It maintains that PW2 completed her testimony and was discharged on April 27, 2026, whereas Exhibit X was subsequently admitted through PW4 on June 22, 2026.

The lawyers argue that PW2 could not have testified about an exhibit that was introduced after she had been discharged.

The application also questions the prosecution's account of evidence concerning a contract for the procurement of a cyber-defence system.

According to the defence, the prosecution incorrectly relied on PW2's testimony to suggest that the NSB had no contractual arrangement with ISC Holdings Limited for the supply of the system.

The defence maintains that the witness had acknowledged the processing and payment of an invoice connected to the procurement, including arrangements relating to delivery and acceptance.

It further challenges the prosecution's claim that PW2 established that the Bureau had no knowledge of BNC Communications Bureau Limited or its bank account.

The lawyers contend that the witness's evidence concerning the account was more limited than the interpretation advanced by the prosecution.

Disagreement over GH¢49.1 million transaction

Another issue concerns how the prosecution presented evidence relating to a GH¢49.1 million transaction linked to the proposed cyber-defence system.

The defence alleges that the prosecution portrayed PW3's testimony as establishing that the entire amount was spent on the accused persons and individuals associated with them, including relatives and friends.

However, the accused persons maintain that this characterisation does not accurately reflect the evidence given in court.

They contend that PW3 identified ISC International Security Consultants Holdings Limited as the beneficiary of transactions recorded in Exhibits 19 and 20.

According to the application, the remittance information presented by the witness described the payments as relating to the procurement of a cyber-defence system under invoice NSC006.

The defence therefore argues that the prosecution's interpretation goes beyond what the witness actually established.

Kumasi building evidence also disputed

The application additionally challenges the prosecution's reliance on Exhibit H in connection with allegations that money was transferred to Adu-Boahene's mother for a building project in Kumasi.

Defence counsel maintains that the exhibit is a photograph of a building rather than a financial document showing the movement of funds.

The lawyers argue that it contains neither bank transaction records nor accounting information establishing the alleged payments.

They also refer to evidence attributed to PW4, who reportedly acknowledged that the accounts examined did not reveal direct payments towards Dorchester Heights, the property identified in the proceedings as the Kumasi project.

On that basis, the defence contends that the prosecution's written submissions do not accurately represent the evidence available to the court.

Court asked to disregard contested passages

The accused persons are asking the High Court to remove the identified portions of the prosecution's submissions from consideration.

Alternatively, they want the court to disregard those passages when deciding whether sufficient evidence has been presented to require them to open their defence.

Their application rests on the argument that legal submissions must be founded on evidence properly admitted during trial and that counsel cannot introduce additional facts through written arguments.

The defence maintains that allowing such material would amount to giving evidence from the Bar, contrary to established principles governing criminal proceedings.

The latest development follows the prosecution's closure of its case on September 8, 2026.

The accused persons subsequently filed their submission of no case to answer on September 25, while the prosecution responded with written arguments on October 9.

The High Court must now consider the defence's objections alongside the pending question of whether the prosecution has established a sufficient evidential basis for the accused persons to be called upon to defend themselves.

The allegations of fabrication and misrepresentation are assertions made by the defence and have not been established by the court.

The application therefore does not amount to a judicial finding of misconduct against the prosecution, nor does it determine the merits of the criminal charges against the accused persons.