By Daniel Bampoe
The high-profile criminal trial involving former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General, Kwabena Adu-Boahene, entered what many legal observers describe as its most critical stage on Monday, June 22, 2026, as the prosecution called its lead investigator, Frank Marshall Cromwell, to begin giving evidence before the Accra High Court.
Cromwell, an investigator with the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), is widely regarded as the prosecution’s most important witness and the architect of the investigative case upon which the Attorney-General has built his allegations against Adu-Boahene and the other accused persons.
His appearance comes after months of testimony from previous prosecution witnesses, including former National Security and National Signals Bureau officials, whose evidence was subjected to extensive cross-examination by the defence team led by veteran lawyer and former Abuakwa South MP, Samuel Atta Akyea.
The case has attracted national attention since March 2025, when Attorney-General Dr. Dominic Ayine publicly announced criminal charges against Adu-Boahene, his wife Angela Adjei-Boateng, and others over allegations involving the alleged diversion of GH¢49.1 million linked to a cyber defence procurement arrangement for the National Security architecture.
Since the commencement of the trial, the prosecution has maintained that the accused persons engaged in a scheme that resulted in the misappropriation of state funds.
The defence, however, has consistently denied the allegations, arguing that the transactions in question were connected to legitimate National Security operations and expenditures.
With the prosecution now presenting its lead investigator, attention is expected to focus on the evidential foundation of the state’s case.
As the officer who supervised and coordinated the investigation, Cromwell is expected to explain the basis upon which EOCO concluded that criminal offences had been committed. His testimony is anticipated to address the movement of the disputed GH¢49.1 million, the source of the funds, and the purpose for which the money was allegedly released.
The investigator is also expected to provide evidence concerning allegations that the accused persons acquired vehicles and other assets using proceeds of the disputed funds.
Additionally, he is expected to address claims regarding properties allegedly linked to Adu-Boahene, including allegations that he owns multiple residential properties in Accra and other locations.
Another key aspect of his testimony is expected to centre on the cyber defence system that lies at the heart of the prosecution’s case.
Questions surrounding whether the system was purchased, whether payments were made to suppliers, and whether the technology was eventually delivered to the National Security establishment have remained among the most fiercely contested issues throughout the proceedings.
Legal observers believe Cromwell’s evidence could prove decisive because he is expected to tie together the various strands of evidence gathered by investigators during the course of the probe.
The significance of his testimony has been heightened by recent developments in the trial, including the Court of Appeal’s decision ordering the Attorney-General to disclose additional documents sought by the defence.
Those disclosures include banking records, National Security correspondence, and information relating to the source and purpose of the disputed funds.
For the prosecution, the investigator’s testimony presents an opportunity to reinforce the allegations contained in the charge sheet and demonstrate that the evidence supports the criminal accusations brought against the accused persons.
For the defence, however, the witness represents the ultimate test of the state’s case.
Samuel Atta Akyea has repeatedly indicated throughout the proceedings that he considers the lead investigator to be the prosecution’s most important witness.
The veteran lawyer has openly stated that his legal strategy since the beginning of the trial has been geared toward challenging the conclusions reached by the investigators.
