By Daniel Bampoe
Fresh developments in the ongoing criminal trial of former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene at the Accra High Court are shifting attention to key admissions made by the prosecution’s own witness, with defence lawyers arguing that the testimony directly contradicts core elements of the state’s case.
At the centre of the controversy is Edith Ruby Opokua Adumuah, Director of Finance at the NSB, whose evidence under months of cross-examination has brought renewed scrutiny to the Attorney-General’s original claims regarding the alleged diversion of GH¢49.1 million—an amount the state equates to about $7 million.
The State’s Case
The prosecution, led by Attorney-General Dominic Akuritinga Ayine, with his deputy, Justice Srem-Sai holding forth in court has maintained since a March 24, 2025 press conference that Adu-Boahene, while heading the then Bureau of National Communications (BNC), orchestrated the transfer of GH¢49.1 million from a state account into a private company account linked to himself and his wife.
According to the state, the funds were purportedly meant for the acquisition of a cyber defence system but were instead diverted into private use, including the purchase of real estate in Oyarifa, Mayfair, Kumasi, and London. Based on these allegations, Adu-Boahene and two others are facing 11 criminal charges, including stealing, money laundering, and causing financial loss to the state.
However, as proceedings have unfolded, the defence—led by lawyer Samuel Atta Akyea—has mounted an aggressive challenge to the prosecution’s narrative, relying heavily on the testimony of the state’s own witness.
“No Knowledge of Any Theft”
One of the most striking moments in court came when Ms Adumuah told the High Court under oath that she had no knowledge of any theft of GH¢49.1 million within the national security system.
“I am not aware of any theft of GH¢49.1 million, and I have not reported any such matter,” she stated, adding that no audit query, management complaint, or official report had ever flagged the amount as missing.
As Director of Finance, she indicated that it would have been her responsibility to detect and report any such irregularity, yet no such discrepancy had come to her attention during her tenure.
Her statement directly challenges the prosecution’s claim that the funds were unlawfully diverted.
Authorisation By National Security Coordinator
Further complicating the prosecution’s case was her admission that the GH¢49.1 million in question originated from special operations funds authorised not by Adu-Boahene, but by the late National Security Coordinator, Joshua Kyeremeh.
She confirmed that three separate cheques—GH¢27.1 million, GH¢1 million, and GH¢21 million—were all signed by the Coordinator and drawn from the “Coordinator’s Account – NSC” at Fidelity Bank.
According to her, the Coordinator held ultimate authority over such accounts and could approve transactions without the conventional documentation required in other public financial systems due to the sensitive nature of national security operations.
This testimony casts doubt on the prosecution’s assertion that Adu-Boahene independently controlled or diverted the funds.
Dispute Over “State BNC” And “Private BNC”
Another key issue raised during proceedings relates to the very structure of the institution at the heart of the case.
Adumuah told the court that what the Attorney-General described as a “state BNC” was not a standalone public institution but rather an internal department within the National Security Council Secretariat.
She further clarified that the account referred to by the prosecution as a “state BNC account” was in fact the Coordinator’s Account, controlled solely by the National Security Coordinator.
On the question of a so-called “private BNC account,” the witness indicated that the account in question at UMB Bank—described by investigators as private—was actually known internally as the BNC Operations account, used by multiple national security officers, including herself, for operational transactions.
The court indicated that the matter could be resolved by verifying account numbers, with records suggesting both accounts referenced may in fact be the same.
Exchange Rate Discrepancies
The prosecution’s claim that GH¢49.1 million was equivalent to $7 million at the time of the alleged transaction also came under scrutiny.
Adumuah told the court that based on prevailing exchange rates between 2020 and 2021, the figures did not align.
She explained that exchange rates ranged between 5.27 and 5.85 cedis to the dollar, making it mathematically inconsistent to equate GH¢49.1 million directly to $7 million during that period.
Her testimony raises questions about the financial assumptions underpinning the state’s case.
No Budget Or Documentation for Cyber Defence System
The witness further testified that she had never seen any budget, invoice, or official documentation linking GH¢49.1 million to the procurement of a cyber defence system.
She stated that although she was responsible for preparing budgets, she had not encountered any record approving such an amount for that purpose.
When shown documents by investigators, she noted inconsistencies in invoice numbers and confirmed that she had not seen any invoice covering the full GH¢49.1 million transaction.
Special Operations And Confidential Spending
Adumuah consistently emphasized that the funds in question were tied to special operations, which operate under strict confidentiality and are often exempt from standard auditing and documentation procedures.
She explained that such operations may involve unconventional financial practices, including cash movements in “Ghana-must-go” bags, which she described as routine within national security operations and not indicative of wrongdoing.
Cyber Defence System And Delivery Questions
On the issue of the cyber defence system, the witness confirmed that payments processed were based on invoices and followed established procedures.
However, she indicated that due to the classified nature of the transaction, she did not have clearance to confirm whether the system was delivered, stating that such knowledge would be limited to top-level national security officials and the supplier, ISC Holdings of Israel.
Pre-Financing Of Operations
The court also heard that due to delays in government budget releases, national security operations were sometimes pre-financed by officials, including Adu-Boahene himself.
Adumuah disclosed that there were instances where the institution had as little as GH¢11,000 in its accounts, necessitating urgent financial arrangements to sustain operations.
She admitted that she had, on occasion, personally appealed to Adu-Boahene to provide funds for time-sensitive operations, though she could not confirm whether all such pre-financing had been reimbursed.
Trial Developments And Next Witness
After nearly five months of cross-examination, the defence concluded its questioning of Adumuah on April 27, 2026, marking a significant phase in the trial.
In a notable development, the prosecution has indicated its intention to call Mildred Donkor—previously listed as the third accused person in the case—as its next witness. The Court has adjourned to Wednesday, 29th April 2026 for commencement of Examination-in-Chief of PW3.
