By Daniel Bampoe
A fresh public dispute has emerged over the ongoing criminal trial involving former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene, after the defence team dismissed a social media statement by Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, accusing him of presenting a misleading account of evidence currently before the Accra High Court.
In a social media post, Justice Srem-Sai expressed confidence that the Republic was nearing the conclusion of its case and outlined what he described as the body of evidence already presented by state prosecutors and investigators.
According to the Deputy Attorney-General, the prosecution has established that the disputed GH¢49.1 million belonged to the Government of Ghana and was held in a government agency bank account, that the principal accused allegedly created a private company account resembling the name of a government agency, diverted three cheques into that account, spent the funds on houses and luxury vehicles, and later attempted to conceal the transactions through forged purchase receipts and other documentation.
He further asserted that the cyber defence equipment allegedly used to justify the transactions was never purchased and that justice would ultimately be served.
However, lawyers representing Adu-Boahene have strongly rejected those assertions, arguing that they merely repeat allegations contained in the Attorney-General’s earlier press conferences and should not be mistaken for findings made by the trial court.
According to the defence, the issues raised by the Deputy Attorney-General remain disputed and are matters that the High Court must determine after considering all admissible evidence.
Defence Cites Court Of Appeal Orders
The defence pointed to the recent decision of the Court of Appeal as evidence that important factual questions remain unresolved.
In that ruling, the appellate court ordered the Republic to disclose several categories of information, including the source of the disputed GH¢49.1 million, files compiled by the late National Security Coordinator Joshua Kyeremeh relating to the cyber defence acquisition, correspondence connected to National Security operations, records relating to special operations accounts, and missing banking records linked to the prosecution’s case.
The defence argues that the Court of Appeal’s disclosure orders demonstrate that significant evidentiary issues remained outstanding during the trial.
Dispute Over Source Of Funds
One of the principal disagreements concerns the source of the GH¢49.1 million.
According to the defence, following the Court of Appeal’s disclosure order, the Attorney-General filed a response on July 1, 2026, which, the defence says, stated that the prosecution had no evidence regarding the source of the disputed funds.
Based on that response, the defence argues that it is inaccurate to state that there is no dispute concerning the ownership or origin of the money.
The prosecution, however, maintains that the funds constituted Government of Ghana money and has continued to rely on that position as part of its case before the High Court.
Who Authorised the Transactions?
The defence also disputes the prosecution’s account of how the disputed funds were transferred.
According to defence counsel, prosecution witnesses, including officials from the National Signals Bureau and the lead investigator from the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), testified that the three cheques at the centre of the case were signed by the late National Security Coordinator, who also authorised the opening of the relevant Fidelity Bank account.
The defence argues that this evidence differs from the prosecution’s public suggestion that Adu-Boahene alone transferred the funds into a private account.
The defence further contends that the lead investigator acknowledged during testimony that he did not know the operational purpose for which the National Security Coordinator authorised the cheques.
Questions Over Alleged Diversion
Another issue raised by the defence concerns the allegation that the funds were diverted.
According to the defence, if prosecutors maintain that the money was unlawfully diverted, they must identify the account or destination to which the funds were originally intended to be sent.
The defence claims that the lead investigator admitted during testimony that he was unaware of any alternative account into which the money was supposed to have been paid.
The prosecution has not publicly accepted that characterisation of the investigator’s evidence and continues to pursue the diversion allegations before the trial court.
Alleged Assets Remain in Dispute
The defence has also challenged the prosecution’s public allegations that the accused persons used the disputed funds to acquire houses, vehicles and other assets.
According to the defence, those allegations remain matters to be proved during the trial, and they argue that the prosecution has yet to establish them through admissible evidence before the court.
The prosecution, on the other hand, has stated publicly that it possesses documentary evidence, including bank statements, purchase records and ownership documents, which it says support those allegations.
