By Daniel Bampoe
The legal battle surrounding the trial of former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene has taken another contentious turn, with his defence team accusing Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai of misrepresenting evidence before the public concerning the closure of a Universal Merchant Bank (UMB) account linked to the case.
The defence says recent public comments by the Deputy Attorney-General about a purported 2020 Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) filed by UMB do not accurately reflect the evidence given under oath by the prosecution’s own fourth witness, Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) investigator Frank Marshall Cromwell.
In a statement responding to comments made by Dr Srem-Sai on PM Express on JoyNews, the lawyers for Adu-Boahene argued that the prosecution’s public account suggested that the UMB account was closed because the bank had identified suspicious transactions and reported them to the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC).
The defence, however, contends that the evidence before the court does not establish such a causal link.
The controversy centres on a UMB account identified in the proceedings as the BNC Operations account. The prosecution has alleged that the account formed part of a structure through which state funds were diverted, while the defence has consistently maintained that the account was connected to National Security operations and that its characterization as a private account is misleading.
What the EOCO investigator told the court
During cross-examination on July 31, 2026, defence counsel Samuel Atta Akyea questioned Cromwell extensively about the alleged STR and the circumstances surrounding the UMB account.
According to the testimony cited by the defence, Cromwell confirmed that the alleged STR related principally to a GH¢7.2 million transaction.
The money, according to the witness, moved from the BNC Communications Bureau account through an account associated with Adu-Boahene before being transferred to the National Security Coordinator’s Fidelity Bank account, from which the funds were subsequently sent to ISC Holdings in Israel in connection with the procurement of a cyber-defence system.
However, when counsel questioned the investigator about what exactly UMB had considered suspicious, Cromwell’s evidence, according to the defence, was more limited than the public account attributed to the Deputy Attorney-General.
The investigator agreed that the opening of the UMB account itself had not been identified as suspicious in the report.
He also indicated that the three cheques deposited into the account, with the payee described as “BNC Operations”, were not identified as suspicious in the material before the court.
Cromwell further acknowledged that the purported report did not identify any other transaction on the account as suspicious.
The defence therefore argues that the evidence does not support a suggestion that the entire account or its general operations had been flagged by UMB as suspicious.
Did the FIC actually receive the report?
Another significant issue raised during the cross-examination concerned whether the alleged STR was independently verified with the Financial Intelligence Centre.
Cromwell confirmed that Suspicious Transaction Reports are filed with the FIC and that the FIC is expected to deal with reports submitted to it.
However, when asked whether he personally contacted the FIC to establish whether UMB had actually filed the alleged report, the EOCO investigator answered in the negative.
He also conceded that he could not point to an acknowledgement from the FIC confirming receipt of the report.
The investigator explained that the prosecution’s material included screenshots from UMB’s systems showing references to suspicious transaction reports filed and accepted through the goAML platform.
He further stated that, based on his understanding, the FIC normally communicates with banks that file such reports.
According to the defence, however, the absence of direct confirmation from the FIC leaves an important evidential question unanswered: whether the purported STR was actually received and acted upon by the Centre.
The three-year gap
The defence has also drawn attention to the timing of the alleged report and the eventual closure of the account.
Cromwell testified that the STR related to the UMB account in 2020. He also confirmed that the account was closed on March 2, 2023.
The defence therefore argues that approximately three years separated the alleged STR and the closure of the account.
In the lawyers’ view, the prosecution has not established through the investigator’s testimony that the 2020 STR caused or directly resulted in the account’s closure in 2023.
The lawyers say this distinction is important because a bank filing an STR does not, by itself, establish that the account holder committed an offence, nor does the existence of an STR automatically prove that a subsequent account closure was caused by the report.
Defence challenges prosecution’s public narrative
The defence team has consequently accused the Deputy Attorney-General of presenting a version of events that, in its view, goes beyond what has been established in court.
The lawyers said the prosecution should distinguish between allegations contained in its case and facts that have been established through admissible evidence.
They argue that the court record should remain the principal reference point for assessing the case, rather than statements made during media interviews or public engagements.
The defence particularly objects to what it describes as an attempt to portray the UMB account closure as confirmation of wrongdoing when the prosecution’s own investigator could not establish that the alleged STR resulted in the closure.
The GH¢7.2 million transaction
The GH¢7.2 million transaction itself remains an important component of the prosecution’s case.
According to Cromwell’s evidence, the transaction involved money moving from the BNC Communications Bureau account through Adu-Boahene’s account and ultimately into the National Security Coordinator’s Fidelity Bank account.
The funds were subsequently transferred to ISC Holdings in Israel in connection with the alleged cyber-defence system acquisition.
The defence has previously relied on evidence concerning the transaction to challenge the prosecution’s characterization of the movement of funds as a clandestine diversion through a criminal network.
Its position is that transactions conducted through identifiable bank accounts and supported by banking records must be examined in their full context, including who authorised them, their stated purpose and the destination of the funds.
A wider dispute over the GH¢49.1 million
The latest disagreement is part of a broader dispute over approximately GH¢49.1 million at the centre of Adu-Boahene’s trial.
The prosecution alleges that the money constituted state funds that were unlawfully diverted and subsequently used for private purposes, including the acquisition of properties and luxury vehicles.
The defence disputes that characterization and has repeatedly challenged the prosecution’s account of the source, authorization, movement and ultimate purpose of the funds.
The case has already seen extensive cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, including NSB Director of Finance Edith Ruby Opokua Adumuah and former Advantage Solutions director Mildred Donkor.
The defence has used their evidence to question the prosecution’s characterization of the accounts involved and the nature of transactions conducted through them.
Disclosure battles add to the controversy
The proceedings have also been shaped by a major disclosure dispute between the two sides.
The Court of Appeal previously ordered the Republic to provide the defence with several categories of documents and information, including missing pages of Advantage Solutions’ UMB account statements, information on the source of the GH¢49.1 million, the file compiled by former National Security Coordinator Joshua Kyeremeh concerning the cyber-defence acquisition, correspondence concerning National Security special-purpose accounts and information concerning the purpose of the GH¢49.1 million.
Those orders followed a challenge by the defence over materials it said were necessary to properly test the prosecution’s case.
The defence has since maintained that several aspects of the prosecution’s public narrative have not been supported by the evidence emerging during cross-examination.
A case now turning on the evidence
With the trial continuing, the latest dispute underscores the increasingly sharp divide between the prosecution’s public description of the case and the defence’s interpretation of evidence presented in court.
The defence insists that the prosecution must establish its allegations through evidence and not through public commentary, while the state maintains its position that the accused persons unlawfully dealt with government funds.
Adu-Boahene and the other accused persons have pleaded not guilty to the charges against them.
The allegations remain matters for determination by the court, and neither the existence of a Suspicious Transaction Report nor the closure of a bank account, standing alone, constitutes a judicial finding of criminal liability.
For the defence, however, the unanswered questions surrounding the alleged 2020 STR, the absence of direct confirmation from the FIC and the three-year gap between the alleged report and the account’s closure have become another battleground in its effort to dismantle what it describes as an exaggerated prosecution narrative.
The lawyers have therefore called on Dr Srem-Sai to stop what they describe as “misinformation and disinformation” about the case and allow the evidence presented before the court to determine the eventual outcome.
