By Daniel Bampoe
In a highly controversial legal maneuver, Ghana’s Attorney-General, Dr. Dominic Ayine, has released classified national security financial records from the Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo administration as part of disclosures in a high-profile corruption case—yet has declined to release similar records from the John Mahama-led administrations (2008–2016, and January to June 2025), citing national security sensitivities.
The documents were filed in the case Republic v. Kwabena Adu-Boahene & Others, currently before the High Court in Accra, and involve allegations of financial misconduct against several individuals linked to Advantage Solutions Ltd, the company owned by the main suspect.
The prosecution’s disclosures include detailed bank statements from what appears to be a National Security operational account—showing multimillion-cedi transactions between 2020 and 2021 under the Akufo-Addo presidency.
Leaked Bank Records Raise Eyebrows
The bank records, now part of the court’s public docket, detail a series of large cash withdrawals and cheque payments involving names like Stephen Arthur, Edith Ruby Opokuah Adumuah, and Kwabena Adu-Boahene.
One account statement showed a starting balance of GHS 27.8 million in January 2020, with successive withdrawals reducing the balance through various transactions, many marked as “cash withdrawals” or transfers “IFO” (in favor of) the accused persons.
In one example dated 20 March 2020, a cash cheque withdrawal of GHS 500,000 was issued in favor of Kwabena Adu-Boahene—the main accused—shortly after a GHS 26 million deposit was made from a clearing cheque linked to National Security.
Critics say the records point to a pattern of potential abuse of state funds through loosely monitored accounts under the guise of national security operations.
Political Undertones
What is fueling political tension is the Attorney-General’s selective disclosure.
While extensive records from Akufo-Addo’s government (2017–2021) are now on public record, requests by defence lawyers to access similar operational accounts from the previous NDC administrations—spanning President Mahama’s first term and his caretaker role—have reportedly been denied.
Legal observers and opposition voices see this as a deliberate political tactic aimed at discrediting the former NPP government in the ongoing saga.
The Legal Implications and Risk to Intelligence Operations
The public release of these financial records could compromise sensitive state security operations and personnel identities.
The account in question—managed under National Security protocols—was never intended for public audit or court scrutiny without prior executive clearance.
Indeed, some entries in the records show money being wired internationally for “consultancy payments” to addresses in Israel and Dubai, involving firms such as International Security Consultants Holdings Ltd and Glomacs FZ LLC.
These foreign payments—totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars—could imply intelligence outsourcing or international training contracts.
Precedent or a Pandora’s Box?
The precedent set by Ayine’s office could open the floodgates to similar demands from civil society, political opponents, and international watchdogs.
While the Attorney-General’s office has not officially commented on the refusal to release NDC-era records, insiders say the justification rests on protecting “active operations” and avoiding retrospective security breaches.
The Adu-Boahene Case
The central case, Republic v. Kwabena Adu-Boahene, involves alleged embezzlement of national security funds funneled through Advantage Solutions Ltd., a private firm contracted to carry out undefined services.
The accused are believed to have manipulated procurement processes, siphoned large sums through dummy contracts, and used their proximity to power during Akufo-Addo’s presidency to mask their activities.
As hearings continue, the debate over transparency versus state secrecy is far from over.
Civil society groups and former state officials are calling for a bipartisan parliamentary probe into all National Security operational accounts from 2008 to date.
The court’s decision on whether to compel full disclosure across political eras will determine not just the fate of the accused—but potentially the future boundaries of legal accountability in the national security spending.
