Kwabena Adu-Boahene
The Court of Appeal has partly granted multiple requests by former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau, Kwabena Adu-Boahene, and his wife, Angela Adjei-Boateng, for the disclosure of certain documents regarding bank statements of one of his companies and other issues relating to the purchase of a cyber defence system for the State.
Mr. Adu-Boahene and his wife, Angela Adjei-Boateng and two others, have been charged for allegedly stealing a total of GH¢49.1 million from the State.
The Attorney General as part of disclosures provided portions of the bank statements of Advantage Solutions Limited, a company incorporated by the couple, leaving out other pages which the defence said is exculpatory to their case.
The accused has filed an application asking the trial court to order the prosecution to provide the missing pages, but the court, then presided over by Justice Eugene Nyante Nyadu dismissed the request, holding that the accused persons could produce those pages later as part of their witness statements.
The lawyers therefore appealed the decision, arguing that the trial judge erred in his decision especially when the accused persons had not been ordered to open their defence.
“The upshot is that his Lordship in his prejudgment has effectively dismissed any potential submission of no case to answer,” they argued.
They further argued that the ruling gave aid to the prosecution to conceal vital and relevant documents and information exculpatory of the accused persons.
The lawyers further contended that Adu-Boahene and wife could not obtain the missing pages of the Advantage Solutions Company Limited’s UMB Bank account, the accounts having been frozen by Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO).
A three member panel of the Court of Appeal, Justices Georgina Mensah-Datsa (presiding), George Buadi and Ayitey Armah-Tetteh directed the Attorney General to provide the couple with the missing pages (pages2-89) of the accounts statements of Advantage Solutions Limited.
“It was the position of the court that despite the fact that Adu-Boahene and his wife have access to their bank statements, the prosecution has disclosed portions of the said statement hence it is their responsibility “to provide the missing pages to void the appearance of concealing some evidence connected to this case,” the court said.
The court also agreed with lawyers for the accused that the trial judge misconceived his remit at the case management conference stage in a criminal case when he started the evaluation of evidence before the commencement of the trial itself.
Nations Security Records
Meanwhile, the court has partly granted the couple’s request for the disclosure of the National Security Coordinator’s accounts.
The couple had filed an application for further disclosures, asking the trial court to order the prosecution to disclose all National Security Coordinators’ special operational accounts, spanning 33 years and five Presidents – from 1992 to date.
The court, presided over by Justice Eugene Nyante Nyadu, in his ruling on July 3, 2025, dismissed the request for further disclosure, stating that the accused did not provide justification for the request.
But the Court of Appeal its judgment yesterday said the accused did not indicate the connection to the specific charges and that the request by the accused was too broad.
It however, limited the disclosures of National Security Coordinator’s account connected to Mr. Adu-Boahene and directed the Attorney General to disclose same to him.
The court also ordered the Attorney General to provide the accused with portions of the file put together by former National Security Coordinator, Joshua Kyeremeh relating to the acquisition of the cyber defence system connected with the case.
Again, the court ordered that the immediate exited National Security Coordinator makes full disclosure as to whether the sum of GH₵49.1 million was meant for the importation of the cyber defence system alone.
“The prosecution bears a duty not only to disclose material in its possession, but also those within the control of the investigative agencies or that could be obtained with reasonable diligence,” the court held.
The court, however, refused the accused person’s request for a stay of the trial pending the disclosure of the documents requested, holding that the compliance with the order for disclosures can be done concurrently with the case continuing.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak