By Daniel Bampoe
The trial of former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene took another dramatic turn on Monday, June 22, 2026, after lead defence counsel Samuel Atta Akyea announced plans to file a formal application asking the court to physically inspect National Security premises to determine whether the controversial cyber defence system at the centre of the prosecution’s case was actually delivered.
The proposed application has the potential to become one of the most consequential developments in the high-profile criminal proceedings, as it directly targets one of the core allegations underpinning the prosecution’s case.
For more than a year, the dispute over the alleged cyber defence procurement has dominated public discussion surrounding the case.
The Attorney-General’s office has maintained that approximately GH¢49.1 million, which prosecutors have linked to a cyber defence acquisition project, was improperly diverted.
The defence, however, has consistently argued that the cyber defence equipment was genuinely procured and delivered to the National Security establishment.
Defence Pushes for Physical Inspection
Addressing the court during proceedings, Atta Akyea indicated that he intends to seek judicial permission for the trial judge to personally visit the relevant National Security facility and verify whether the cyber defence infrastructure exists.
The proposed inspection, according to the defence, would provide the court with an opportunity to independently assess the facts rather than relying solely on competing narratives advanced by the prosecution and defence.
The request comes at a time when questions surrounding the existence, delivery, and operational status of the cyber defence system remain among the most fiercely contested issues in the trial.
For the defence, the matter goes down to a simple but crucial question: Was the cyber defence system supplied or not?
Defence Questions Basis of Investigation
The defence contends that investigators failed to establish whether the equipment had been delivered before concluding that wrongdoing had occurred.
According to the defence, neither the Attorney-General nor investigators have produced inventory records, technical verification reports, or documentary evidence demonstrating that the cyber defence system was never received by National Security.
The defence further argues that before initiating criminal proceedings, investigators should have sought direct confirmation from the Israeli supplier, ISC Holdings Limited, regarding the status of the equipment.
Instead, defence lawyers maintain that the investigation proceeded without first obtaining confirmation from the vendor that allegedly supplied the system.
National Signals Bureau Response
According to submissions made by the defence, investigators subsequently approached the National Signals Bureau seeking confirmation regarding the cyber defence equipment.
However, the Bureau reportedly requested more specific details regarding the equipment in question because multiple technological systems and equipment had been supplied by ISC Holdings over the years.
The defence argues that those requested particulars were never provided, leaving unresolved questions regarding the exact equipment investigators were seeking to verify.
ISC Holdings Letter Emerges
A major plank of the defence strategy centres on correspondence obtained directly from ISC Holdings.
According to the defence, Samuel Atta Akyea independently wrote to the Israeli company seeking clarification regarding the status of the cyber defence system.
In a response dated July 1, 2025, ISC Holdings reportedly stated that all cyber defence systems supplied under the confidential agreement executed on January 30, 2020, together with related service obligations, had been fully delivered to Ghana’s National Security authorities.
The defence intends to rely heavily on that correspondence in challenging the prosecution’s narrative.
According to Atta Akyea, if the supplier itself confirms delivery, such evidence cannot simply be ignored without compelling contrary proof.
Who Should the Court Believe?
The issue has increasingly become one of evidentiary weight. The defence argues that when determining whether equipment was delivered, the most credible sources are the supplier who provided the equipment and the institution designated to receive it.
From the defence perspective, confirmation from the supplier deserves serious consideration, particularly if investigators cannot produce contrary documentary evidence establishing that the equipment was never delivered.
The prosecution, on the other hand, is expected to rely on its own investigative findings and evidence as the trial continues.
Star Investigator Takes Centre Stage
The developments unfolded on the same day that the prosecution called Frank Marshall Cromwell, the lead investigator from the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), to begin his testimony.
Cromwell is widely regarded as the prosecution’s most important witness because he supervised the investigation that led to the criminal charges against Adu-Boahene and the other accused persons.
His testimony is expected to address the alleged misappropriation of funds, the source and purpose of the disputed GH¢49.1 million, allegations regarding vehicles and properties allegedly acquired with the funds, and the status of the cyber defence procurement itself.
For many observers, Cromwell’s evidence will represent the prosecution’s most comprehensive attempt to justify the allegations contained in the charge sheet.
Atta Akyea Signals Major Cross-Examination
Following the proceedings, Atta Akyea expressed confidence that the prosecution’s lead investigator would face rigorous scrutiny when cross-examination begins.
The veteran lawyer stated that he had been preparing for this witness since the commencement of the trial and suggested that the court would ultimately determine whether the prosecution’s case is grounded in verifiable facts or assumptions.
He argued that criminal convictions must rest on credible, reliable, and convincing evidence rather than speculation.
According to Atta Akyea, the burden remains on the prosecution to prove its allegations beyond reasonable doubt, and the cross-examination of the lead investigator will be a crucial test of whether that burden can be met.
