High Court Accra: Adu-Boahene Case Evidence Misrepresentation Motion Adjourned

• A motion was filed in the Kwabena Adu-Boahene trial alleging the prosecution misrepresented witness testimony and documentary evidence.
• The application seeks to strike out specific passages from the prosecution's response to the accused's submission of no case to answer.
• The High Court in Accra adjourned the hearing on the motion to October 29, noting the judge had only just become aware of it.
• The defense identified six areas of alleged misrepresentation, including claims about the genuineness of a purchase agreement and witness knowledge of contracts.
• This motion precedes a November 5 ruling on the substantive submission of no case to answer, highlighting its procedural significance.

By seeking to strike out passages based on alleged misrepresentation of witness testimony and documentary evidence, the defense is directly challenging the factual foundation upon which the prosecution's arguments are built.

A significant procedural development has emerged in the ongoing Kwabena Adu-Boahene trial, where a motion has been filed alleging that the prosecution has misrepresented witness testimony and documentary evidence in its written submissions. This application, submitted on October 19 by Kwabena Adu-Boahene, Angela Adjei Boateng, and Advantage Solutions Limited through their legal representative, Samuel Atta Akyea, seeks to have specific passages struck from the prosecution's response to the accused persons' submission of no case to answer. The core contention is that these passages lack support from the official trial record.

TheThe High Court in Accra recently addressed this Adu-Boahene case evidence misrepresentation motion. During a hearing on Monday, October 26, the court announced an adjournment of the proceedings until Thursday, October 29. The presiding judge explained that the case docket was at his residence and that he had only become aware of the motion on the morning of the hearing. Furthermore, the Attorney-General's Office, which reportedly received the application on October 19, had not yet submitted a formal response by the time of Monday's court session. This High Court Accra adjournment sets the stage for further arguments on the factual accuracy of the prosecution's presentation.

The affidavit supporting the motion meticulously outlines six distinct areas where the applicants contend the prosecution's account deviates from the evidence presented. One key dispute revolves around the prosecution's assertion that two witnesses testified to the non-genuineness of a purchase agreement, identified as Exhibit X, and an associated invoice for a cyber-defence system. The applicants counter that neither witness provided testimony supporting this claim regarding the purchase agreement. They highlight that the second prosecution witness was discharged on April 27, 2026, while the agreement itself was admitted into evidence through the fourth witness on June 22.

Regarding the disputed invoices, the affidavit quotes the second witness as stating, "My Lord, it is likely one will be an error," and further notes her inability to specify which invoice contained the error. The applicants argue that such statements do not substantiate the prosecution's characterization of these documents as forged or fabricated. Another point of contention involves the prosecution's claim that the second witness testified to the National Signals Bureau having no contract with ISC Holdings Limited for a cyber-defence system. The affidavit asserts that the witness offered no such evidence, but instead confirmed processing and paying an invoice related to delivery and acceptance milestones for the system.

Further challenges are raised concerning the prosecution's interpretation of the witness's knowledge regarding an operations account. The applicants state that the witness consistently explained that her security clearance precluded her from having information about certain national security accounts and activities. They argue that this testimony cannot be used to support a broader assertion that the institution itself was unaware of the company or its account. The motion also disputes the prosecution's description of a March 2020 invoice as covering a "one-time purchase," citing witness testimony that the amount discussed did not represent the full payment. This prosecution evidence challenge Accra highlights critical discrepancies in how trial proceedings are being interpreted.

This Adu-Boahene case evidence misrepresentation motion is a distinct procedural step within the broader Kwabena Adu-Boahene trial. It is separate from another reply also filed by the accused, which addresses the prosecution's legal arguments against their submission of no case to answer Ghana. While the reply contests the legal grounds for requiring the accused to present a defense, the motion specifically targets the factual accuracy of the prosecution's evidentiary claims. The outcome of this motion is particularly significant as it precedes the court's scheduled ruling on November 5 regarding the substantive submission of no case to answer.

The strategy employed by Samuel Atta Akyea and his clients underscores the critical importance of meticulous scrutiny of opposing counsel's submissions against the actual trial record. By seeking to strike out passages based on alleged misrepresentation of witness testimony and documentary evidence, the defense is directly challenging the factual foundation upon which the prosecution's arguments are built. This procedural move serves to ensure that the court's decisions, particularly on a submission of no case to answer, are based on an accurate and undisputed presentation of the evidence.

Lawyers should observe this procedural strategy for challenging the factual accuracy of prosecution submissions, particularly when responding to a submission of no case to answer. It underscores the critical importance of meticulously comparing opposing counsel's filings against the trial record to identify and contest alleged misrepresentations of witness testimony or documentary evidence.

Source: Original reporting via MyJoyOnline.