‘They all point decisively to guilt’ – AG urges court to reject Adu Boahene’s no-case submission

The Attorney General has urged the High Court to dismiss the no-case submission filed by former National Signals Bureau (NSB) boss Kwabena Adu Boahene and his co-accused, arguing that the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to require them to answer the charges.

In a 25-page written submission, the Attorney General contends that the testimony and documentary evidence presented during the trial establish the essential elements of the offences charged.

Adu Boahene, his wife, Angela Adjei Boateng, and Advantage Solutions, a company allegedly owned by the couple, are standing trial on 11 financial charges relating to the alleged theft of GH¢49.1 million earmarked for the purchase of cyber defence software for the state.

Following the close of the prosecution’s case, Adu Boahene filed a submission of no case on September 25, asking the court to acquit him on the grounds that the prosecution had failed to establish a case requiring him to open his defence.

The prosecution called four witnesses.

The first, Frank Anane Dekpey, a driver for Adu Boahene, testified that he carried out errands involving cash deposits and withdrawals on his employer’s instructions. These included transporting cash in “Ghana must go bags”.

The second witness, NSB Head of Finance Ruby Adumoah Opoku, testified about the transfer of GH¢49.1 million from the bureau’s account into an account unknown to the institution.

The third witness, Mildred Donkor, a former employee of the accused persons, told the court that she operated a company they had established to move funds. She also testified that they gave her pre-signed cheques for those transactions.

The fourth witness, Frank Marshall Cromwell, an investigator with the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), gave evidence about accounts allegedly created to divert the funds and expenditure investigators attributed to the accused persons.

He also challenged the authenticity of a letter purporting to confirm the purchase of the cybersecurity software.

The Attorney General argues that this evidence is sufficient for the case to proceed.

“The above analyses of the law on the offences charged and the evidence adduced in Court show that the Republic has supplied to the Court sufficient evidence to prove each of the essential ingredients of each of the offences charged,” the submission states.

“The evidence which the Republic adduced did not leave any of the allegations in equivocation. They all point decisively to guilt.”

The Attorney General further argues that the defence’s cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses was “extraordinarily tangential” and did not undermine the essential documentary evidence presented by the Republic.

In paragraph 60 of the submission, the Attorney General maintains that the cross-examination of Donkor, the third prosecution witness, did not challenge the substance of her testimony on the transfers.

Instead, according to the submission, the questioning focused on collateral issues, including the lawyers present during her interrogation by EOCO, her salary and pension payments relating to the third accused. The Attorney General says the court rejected the pension-related questions as irrelevant.

The prosecution is therefore asking the court to dismiss the submission of no case and call on the accused persons to open their defence.

With both sides’ submissions filed, the court is scheduled to rule on Thursday, November 5, 2026.

The ruling will determine whether the accused persons are acquitted at this stage or called upon to present their defence. A decision dismissing the submission of no case would allow the trial to continue; it would not amount to a finding of guilt.

DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.

Tags:  

DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.