Adu-Boahene trial: High Court to hear challenge to prosecution’s submissions on October 29

The High Court in Accra has fixed Thursday, October 29, 2026, to hear an application by former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene and two other accused persons seeking to remove portions of the prosecution's written submissions from the court's consideration.

The application accuses the prosecution of presenting an inaccurate account of witness testimonies and documentary evidence in its opposition to the accused persons' submission of no case to answer.

The latest development comes ahead of November 5, when the court is expected to determine whether the prosecution has established sufficient evidence to require the accused persons to open their defence.

Court adjourns hearing of application

When the matter came before the court on Monday, October 26, the presiding judge indicated that he had only become aware of the application that morning and that the case docket was at his residence.

The court consequently adjourned proceedings to October 29 to allow the application to be considered.

The Attorney-General's Office, which was reportedly served with the motion on October 19, had not filed an affidavit in response as of Monday's hearing.

The application was filed by Adu-Boahene, Angela Adjei Boateng and Advantage Solutions Limited through their lawyer, Samuel Atta Akyea.

Apart from the motion seeking to strike out portions of the prosecution's submissions, the accused persons have also filed a separate reply challenging the legal arguments advanced by the State against their submission of no case to answer.

While the reply addresses the prosecution's position that the accused persons should be called upon to defend themselves, the latest motion specifically challenges statements which the defence claims are unsupported by the evidence presented during the trial.

Defence raises concerns over disputed exhibits

In an affidavit supporting the application, Adu-Boahene identifies six areas in which the prosecution allegedly misrepresented the evidence before the court.

One of the issues concerns a purchase agreement and invoices relating to the acquisition of a cyber-defence system.

The defence challenges the prosecution's assertion that two witnesses gave evidence suggesting that the documents were forged or fabricated.

According to the applicants, the second prosecution witness (PW2) was discharged on April 27, 2026, whereas the purchase agreement, marked as Exhibit X, was admitted through the fourth prosecution witness (PW4) on June 22.

They consequently argue that the prosecution's account of PW2's testimony concerning the document cannot be reconciled with the sequence of events recorded during the trial.

The defence also disputes the prosecution's interpretation of testimony relating to discrepancies in the invoices.

According to the application, PW2 acknowledged the possibility of an error in one of the invoices but could not establish which document contained the error.

The applicants maintain that this testimony does not support the prosecution's characterisation of the documents as fraudulent.

Cyber-defence contract and payments questioned

Another issue raised in the motion concerns the prosecution's claim that the National Signals Bureau had no contract with ISC Holdings Limited for the procurement of a cyber-defence system.

The defence argues that PW2 did not make such a statement.

Instead, the applicants contend that the witness acknowledged processing and paying an invoice covering certain stages of the system's delivery and acceptance.

They also challenge the prosecution's interpretation of PW2's testimony concerning BNC Communications Bureau Limited and an account associated with the company.

According to the defence, the witness explained that her security clearance restricted her access to information about certain national security accounts and operations.

The applicants argue that her lack of personal knowledge cannot automatically be interpreted as evidence that the institution itself had no knowledge of the company or its account.

The defence further disputes the prosecution's description of a March 2020 invoice as relating to a single payment.

It maintains that PW2 acknowledged that the amount referred to was not the entire payment for the acquisition and that another invoice relating to the same transaction had been processed.

GH¢49.1 million transaction also disputed

The application additionally challenges the prosecution's interpretation of evidence concerning GH¢49.1 million allegedly connected to the procurement of the cyber-defence system.

According to the defence, the prosecution's written arguments suggest that the third prosecution witness (PW3) established that the entire amount was spent on the accused persons, their relatives, friends and associates.

The applicants reject that account, insisting that the witness did not provide evidence supporting such a conclusion.

They maintain that PW3 identified ISC International Security Consultants Holdings Limited as the beneficiary of payments reflected in Exhibits 19 and 20.

The accompanying remittance information, according to the application, indicated that the payments related to the acquisition of a cyber-defence system.

The defence consequently argues that the prosecution's account goes beyond the evidence actually given by the witness.

Defence disputes alleged payments for Kumasi property

Another contested issue concerns allegations that funds from Advantage Solutions Limited were transferred to Adu-Boahene's mother for a building project in Kumasi.

The prosecution is alleged to have relied on Exhibit H in support of that claim.

However, the defence maintains that the exhibit is merely a photograph of a building and does not contain banking records or other financial information establishing the alleged transfers.

The applicants also refer to testimony from PW4, who reportedly acknowledged that the accounts examined did not reveal direct payments towards Dorchester Heights, the property identified in the proceedings.

On that basis, the defence contends that the prosecution's written submissions inaccurately describe the documentary evidence.

Prosecution maintains accused persons have a case to answer

Meanwhile, the prosecution, in its written submissions filed on October 9 and signed by Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai, maintains that sufficient evidence has been presented to require the accused persons to open their defence.

The State argues that its case is substantially supported by documentary evidence which was not successfully challenged during cross-examination.

It has consequently urged the High Court to dismiss the submission of no case to answer.

However, those submissions were filed before the defence's latest application and do not directly respond to the specific allegations raised in the motion.

The accused persons are asking the court to strike out the disputed passages or disregard them when determining the pending no-case submission.

Their position is that lawyers cannot introduce additional facts through written arguments where those facts have not been established by evidence properly admitted during trial.

The court is expected to consider the application on October 29, ahead of its scheduled November 5 ruling on whether the accused persons have a case to answer.

The allegations of misrepresentation remain claims advanced by the defence and have not been determined by the court.