By Daniel Bampoe
The ongoing criminal trial involving former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene witnessed another dramatic development after a prosecution witness admitted in court that an account repeatedly described by the Attorney-General as a “private account” was in fact the same account internally known within the National Security architecture as the BNC Operations Account (BNC OPS).
The admission, made during the continuing cross-examination of the prosecution’s third witness, Mildred Donkor (PW3) is being viewed as one of the most significant revelations in the trial so far, as it touches directly on a central pillar of the prosecution’s allegations regarding the movement of the disputed GH¢49.1 million.
The testimony has also revived questions about the characterization of accounts used in classified national security operations and whether transactions that the state describes as private may have originated from accounts officially used for operational purposes within the security establishment.
A Key Issue In The Trial
Since the Attorney-General first announced the prosecution in March 2025, the state has consistently maintained that funds linked to a National Security cyber defence project were transferred from official government-controlled accounts into what prosecutors described as private accounts connected to Adu-Boahene and his associates.
That narrative has formed a major component of the prosecution’s case, with investigators alleging that public funds intended for the acquisition of cybersecurity infrastructure were diverted through privately controlled entities.
However, during proceedings at the Accra High Court, the defence has sought to demonstrate that some of the accounts described by the state as private were, in reality, operational accounts utilized within the National Security framework.
Witness Confirms Same Account
Under cross-examination, the third prosecution witness acknowledged that the account referred to by the Attorney-General as “Private BNC” was the same account known within National Security circles as the “BNC Operations Account” or “BNC OPS.”
The witness further admitted that despite being referred to by different names, the account carried the same account number.
According to testimony before the court, the account was identified differently in various contexts even though it remained the same banking facility.
The admission is significant because it goes to the heart of the prosecution’s allegation that funds were transferred into a private account for improper purposes.
Earlier Witness Gave Similar Evidence
The latest testimony mirrors evidence previously given by Edith Ruby Opokua Adumuah, the former Director of Finance of the National Signals Bureau and a prosecution witness.
During her testimony, Adumuah informed the court that cheques connected to the disputed transactions were deposited into the BNC Operations Account located at Labone.
She also indicated that the account involved carried the same account number now under discussion in the ongoing cross-examination.
The consistency between the testimonies of two prosecution witnesses has become a focal point for the defence team, which argues that the evidence supports its longstanding position regarding the nature of the account.
Defence Argument Gains Momentum
Lawyers representing Adu-Boahene led by Samuel Atta Akyea contend that the evidence emerging from the prosecution’s own witnesses undermines the state’s portrayal of the account as a purely private vehicle used for personal enrichment.
Instead, the defence argues that the account was an operational National Security account whose structure and naming conventions reflected the sensitive nature of intelligence activities.
According to the defence, operational security considerations often require certain accounts to be maintained in ways that do not publicly reveal their true purpose.
The defence maintains that the account’s designation and usage were linked to National Security operations and not personal financial activities as alleged by prosecutors.
Background to the GH¢49.1 Million Dispute
The criminal proceedings stem from allegations that approximately GH¢49.1 million, linked to a cyber defence system procurement arrangement, was improperly diverted from public use.
The Attorney-General has accused Adu-Boahene, his wife Angela Adjei-Boateng, and others of unlawfully moving state funds through a network of accounts and companies.
The accused persons have denied all allegations and have consistently maintained that the transactions were connected to legitimate National Security activities and special operations.
Over the past several months, the trial has increasingly focused on the origin of the funds, the authority under which they were disbursed, the nature of the accounts involved, and the operational procedures governing National Security transactions.
Appeal Court Disclosure Orders Add New Dimension
The latest testimony comes shortly after the Court of Appeal ordered the Attorney-General to disclose additional documents relating to the prosecution’s case, including records concerning the source of the GH¢49.1 million, missing bank statements, and files linked to the cyber defence project.
Legal observers say the disclosure orders and the testimony emerging from prosecution witnesses are likely to intensify scrutiny of the state’s narrative regarding the movement of the disputed funds.
Trial Continues
With cross-examination of the third prosecution witness still ongoing, attention is expected to remain focused on the issue of account ownership, operational control, and the distinction between private banking arrangements and classified National Security accounts.
