By Daniel Bampoe
The High Court in Accra has dismissed an application by former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene seeking to strike out portions of the prosecution’s written submissions that his defence team alleges contain fabricated facts and statements wrongly attributed to witnesses.
The application was moved on Thursday, October 29, 2026, before Specialised Court 1 of the Accra High Court by counsel for Adu-Boahene, Samuel Atta Akyea, who challenged passages in the Attorney-General’s response to the accused persons’ submission of no case to answer.
According to the defence, the disputed passages contained statements and factual claims that were not supported by the testimony of prosecution witnesses or the documentary evidence admitted during the trial. The applicants therefore asked the court to remove those portions from the prosecution’s submissions.
During the proceedings, the defence drew attention to the absence of an affidavit in opposition from the Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, arguing that he had not formally controverted the allegations raised in the application.
The defence further maintained that the prosecution had not specifically rebutted the individual allegations of invented facts, fabricated statements and misattributed testimony raised by Atta Akyea.
However, the court observed that it was not its responsibility to investigate whether counsel had relied on evidence that did not exist in the trial record or had incorrectly attributed statements to witnesses. The court also indicated that it was unable to determine the merits or demerits of the application.
The judge noted that the applicants had exercised their right of reply and had extensively highlighted the alleged misrepresentations in their submissions, which the court had taken note of.
The application was subsequently dismissed.
Dismissal does not establish whether allegations were true or false
A key distinction in the court’s decision is that the dismissal of the application was not a judicial finding that the alleged misrepresentations had occurred, nor was it a determination that the prosecution’s disputed passages accurately reflected the evidence.
As described in the account of the proceedings, the court expressly indicated that it was unable to determine the merits or demerits of the application. The ruling should therefore not be interpreted as a judicial endorsement of either side’s account of the disputed statements.
The defence’s allegations remain its position, while the prosecution’s written submissions maintain that the evidence presented at trial is sufficient to establish the essential elements of the charges.
The absence of an affidavit in opposition, as highlighted by the defence, does not by itself establish that the allegations are true. The court’s stated position was that it had taken note of the applicants’ arguments but was unable to determine the application’s merits.
Dispute forms part of wider no-case proceedings
The latest development is part of the ongoing criminal proceedings against Adu-Boahene, his wife, Angela Adjei-Boateng, and Advantage Solutions Limited over allegations involving GH¢49.1 million linked to a purported cyber-defence system procurement.
The accused persons have pleaded not guilty and have challenged the prosecution’s evidence on several fronts, including the interpretation of financial records, the purpose of the transactions and the alleged use of funds for private benefit.
The prosecution, led in its written submissions by the Attorney-General’s Office, has argued that the documentary evidence and testimony presented during the trial establish a sufficient basis for the accused persons to be called upon to open their defence.
The defence, however, has urged the court to find that the prosecution has failed to establish a case requiring answers from the accused persons.
It has raised questions about the alleged movement of funds, the interpretation of banking records, the purpose of the transactions and the evidence linking the money to assets said to have been acquired for private use.
The motion challenging the prosecution’s written submissions was distinct from the substantive no-case submission. While the former sought to have specific passages removed over alleged misrepresentations, the latter asks the court to determine whether the prosecution’s evidence is sufficient for the trial to proceed to the defence stage.
The court’s dismissal of the motion leaves the central no-case question to be determined separately. The substantive ruling remains scheduled for November 5, 2026, according to the previously announced timetable.
