Kwabena Adu-Boahene
The trial of former Director-General of National Signals Bureau, Kwabena Adu-Boahene and his wife, Angela Adjei-Boateng, resumed yesterday after the court turned down a request by their lawyer to adjourn the case pending the determination of a process before the Supreme Court.
Mr. Adu-Boahene and his wife have been charged for allegedly stealing a total of GH¢49.1 million from the state.
Their lawyer, Samuel Atta-Akyea, had informed the court that he was aware the Member of Parliament for Ofoase-Ayirebi, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, has filed an application for a review of the decision of a single judge of the Supreme Court who turned down a request to injunct the court and another from conducting criminal trials during the legal vacation.
“I pray that we allow the three-member panel of the Supreme Court to take a decision, and we will abide by that decision,” he urged the court.
The request was opposed by the Deputy Attorney General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, who contended that the Supreme Court has emphatically dismissed the application for interlocutory injunction and that satisfies the trial judge’s decision to halt the trial to abide the apex court’s decision.
“The Supreme Court’s position is that this court can proceed with the trial and, most importantly, that proceedings in the matter could not in any way occasion a miscarriage of justice to the accused persons. That settled the matter,” he pointed out.
He added that subsequent process filed at the Supreme Court should not, until actually decided, reverse the court’s “emphatic pronouncement by the Supreme Court.”
Justice Francis Achibonga, in a ruling, said he has not seen any rule or law which would by necessary implication stay the hands of the court in respect of an application seeking a review of the decision of the Supreme Court.
“It is not disputed that the Supreme Court albeit the decision of a single justice has refused to restrain this court and another from conducting trials during the vacation. That being the case, this order of the Supreme Court is not only binding, but same must be respected until otherwise set aside, varied or reversed,” he said.
He added that he was therefore unable to accede to request of counsel for accused persons to adjourn the suit to await the outcome of the decision by the Supreme Court, in respect of the application by Kojo Oppong Nkrumah.
Cross-Examination
The trial then resumed with Mr. Atta-Akyea further cross-examining the prosecution’s fourth and final witness, Frank Cromwell Marshall, focusing on what he described as the witness’s failure to enter the premises of the National Security Council Secretariat to confirm the existence of the cyber defence system, which is the subject matter of the trial.
The witness said responses received from the National Signals Bureau during investigations have been documented and same made available to the court to clearly show that they did not have the purported cyber defence system.
He also suggested to the witness that the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), which investigated the matter, suffers a deficit of understanding relating to system and equipment being ran by the National Security. “I don’t know about that,” the witness responded.
Meanwhile, the witness has admitted to not taking a statement from ISC Holdings Limited, the Israeli company from which the cyber defence system was purchased.
Mr. Atta-Akyea then suggested to the witness that not having engaged ISC Holdings Limited, the seller of the defence system or the office of the National Security Coordinator, it “lies ill in your mouth to say the cyber defence system was not delivered.” Mr. Marshall said, “it is not so.”
BY Gibril Abdul Razak