By Daniel Bampoe
The legal battle surrounding former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene has taken a fresh political and legal dimension, with his lead lawyer, Samuel Atta Akyea, accusing the Attorney-General of effectively declaring his clients guilty long before they appeared before a court of law.
The former Abuakwa South Member of Parliament has launched a scathing attack on the conduct of the prosecution, arguing that public statements made by Attorney-General Dr. Dominic Akuritinga Ayine at the beginning of the case created a perception of guilt and undermined the constitutional principle that every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
His remarks come at a time when the prosecution’s case has come under increasing scrutiny following recent rulings by the Court of Appeal ordering the state to disclose additional documents and evidence sought by the defence.
“The Verdict Was Delivered Before The Trial”
Speaking on Citi FM’s Eyewitness News, Atta Akyea argued that the Attorney-General’s highly publicized press conference announcing the case against Adu-Boahene and his wife created the impression that the outcome of the trial had already been determined.
According to him, the Attorney-General publicly projected confidence in the strength of the evidence and even suggested that the accused persons should consider plea bargaining arrangements before they had formally appeared before a court.
“I have to tell you that it was the Attorney-General who concluded that before they were arraigned before a court of law, my clients were guilty,” Atta Akyea stated.
He argued that the comments went beyond merely announcing criminal charges and ventured into territory that suggested a predetermined conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused persons.
Prosecutor and Judge?
The veteran lawyer further contended that the Attorney-General’s public posture blurred the distinction between the role of a prosecutor and that of a judge.
According to him, the public presentation of the case created a narrative that the accused persons had already been convicted in the court of public opinion before the prosecution had the opportunity to prove its allegations before an impartial court.
“If you pay regard to the well-choreographed press conference at the instance of the Attorney-General, he was so clear that they better come for plea bargaining because of the kind of evidence he has against them,” Atta Akyea said.
“The Attorney-General was a prosecutor and then the judge at the same time.”
The comments represent one of the strongest criticisms yet directed at the Attorney-General since the commencement of the prosecution.
Public Narrative Versus Courtroom Evidence
Atta Akyea also claimed that the public narrative surrounding the case differs significantly from what has emerged during courtroom proceedings.
He argued that media reports generated from the Attorney-General’s public briefings painted a picture of overwhelming evidence and inevitable conviction, whereas testimony and disclosures emerging in court have presented a more complicated situation.
“This is what they sold to the press and then they had to now come to court and prove the matter beyond reasonable doubt,” he said.
According to him, evidence led in court has not always aligned with some of the public assertions made when the case was first announced.
“There has been a lot of poison in the media space already, but the story in the court is different,” he added.
Background to the Prosecution
The case against Adu-Boahene stems from allegations that approximately GH¢49.1 million linked to a National Security cyber defence project was unlawfully diverted.
The Attorney-General has alleged that funds intended for the acquisition of cybersecurity infrastructure were transferred through accounts connected to the accused persons and subsequently used for purposes unrelated to the project.
Adu-Boahene, his wife Angela Adjei-Boateng, and associated entities have denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty to charges including stealing, money laundering, using public office for profit, and causing financial loss to the state.
Since the commencement of the trial, several prosecution witnesses have testified, including National Security officials and former associates of the accused persons.
Appeal Court Ruling Changes Dynamics
Atta Akyea’s latest criticism comes shortly after the Court of Appeal handed the defence a significant procedural victory.
The appellate court overturned parts of an earlier High Court ruling and ordered the Attorney-General to disclose additional documents, including missing bank records, information concerning the source of the disputed GH¢49.1 million, and files connected to the cyber defence system that forms the centre of the prosecution’s case.
The Court of Appeal held that prosecutors have a continuing obligation to disclose relevant materials necessary for a fair trial.
However, the court rejected an application seeking disclosure of National Security account records spanning multiple administrations and also refused a request to halt the ongoing criminal proceedings.
As a result, the substantive trial continues while the prosecution complies with the disclosure orders.
