Ghana AG Urges Court to Reject Kwabena Adu Boahene No-Case Submission

• Former NSB boss Kwabena Adu Boahene, his wife, and their company face 11 financial charges for allegedly stealing GH¢49.1 million meant for cyber defence software.
• Adu Boahene filed a no-case submission, arguing insufficient prosecution evidence for him to open his defense.
• The Attorney General urged the High Court to reject the submission, citing strong witness testimonies and documentary evidence.
• Prosecution witnesses included Adu Boahene's driver, the NSB Head of Finance, a former employee, and an EOCO investigator.
• The court is set to rule on the Kwabena Adu Boahene no-case submission Ghana on Thursday, November 5, 2026.

The Attorney General's office asserted that the evidence presented by the Republic left no ambiguity regarding the allegations, emphatically stating, "The evidence which the Republic adduced did not leave any of the allegations in equivocation. They all point decisively to guilt."

Kwabena Adu Boahene, the former head of Ghana's National Signals Bureau (NSB), along with his wife, Angela Adjei Boateng, and their company, Advantage Solutions, are currently embroiled in a high-stakes legal battle, facing 11 distinct financial charges. These serious accusations revolve around the alleged misappropriation of GH¢49.1 million, funds that were specifically designated for the procurement of vital cyber defence software for the Ghanaian state. Following the prosecution's presentation of its case, Mr. Adu Boahene initiated a no-case submission on September 25, petitioning the court for an acquittal. His argument hinges on the assertion that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case compelling him to present a defense.

In a significant development, the Attorney General (AG) has formally urged the High Court to reject the no-case submission put forth by Mr. Adu Boahene and his co-accused. The AG's office, through a detailed 25-page written submission, contends that the prosecution has indeed furnished sufficient evidence to substantiate the charges, thereby necessitating that the defendants respond to the allegations. This crucial juncture in the trial will see the court meticulously evaluate the weight and sufficiency of the evidence presented, a decision that holds considerable implications for the trajectory of the proceedings concerning the GH¢49.1 million cyber defence software theft.

The prosecution's case was built upon the testimonies of four key individuals. Frank Anane Dekpey, who served as Mr. Adu Boahene's driver, provided an account of his involvement in numerous cash transactions, including deposits and withdrawals, carried out under his employer's instructions. He notably described transporting substantial sums of money in what are colloquially known as "Ghana must go bags." Ruby Adumoah Opoku, the Head of Finance at the National Signals Bureau, offered critical testimony concerning the transfer of the GH¢49.1 million from the NSB's official account into an account whose affiliation was unknown to the institution.

Further bolstering the prosecution's narrative, Mildred Donkor, a former employee of the accused couple, testified about her role in operating a company allegedly established by them specifically for the purpose of moving funds. She also disclosed that she was provided with pre-signed cheques to facilitate these transactions. The fourth witness, Frank Marshall Cromwell, an investigator from the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), presented evidence regarding various accounts purportedly created to divert the funds. He meticulously detailed expenditures that investigators linked directly to the accused individuals and raised serious questions about the authenticity of a letter that claimed to confirm the purchase of the cybersecurity software, suggesting it might be a fabrication. This comprehensive evidence forms the bedrock of the Attorney General's argument against the Kwabena Adu Boahene no-case submission Ghana.

The Attorney General's submission forcefully argues that the collective impact of the witness testimonies and the documentary evidence presented during the trial unequivocally establishes all essential elements of the 11 financial charges. The AG's office asserted that the evidence presented by the Republic left no ambiguity regarding the allegations, emphatically stating, "The evidence which the Republic adduced did not leave any of the allegations in equivocation. They all point decisively to guilt." This strong declaration underscores the prosecution's conviction that they have met the evidentiary threshold required to proceed.

Moreover, the Attorney General criticized the defense's cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, characterizing it as "extraordinarily tangential" and ineffective in discrediting the fundamental documentary evidence. For instance, the cross-examination of Mildred Donkor reportedly focused on peripheral issues, such as the legal representatives present during her interrogation by EOCO, her salary, and pension payments related to the third accused, rather than challenging the core substance of her testimony regarding the fund transfers. The court itself deemed the pension-related questions irrelevant and consequently rejected them. The prosecution is therefore seeking the dismissal of the no-case submission, urging the court to compel the accused to open their defense. The High Court is scheduled to deliver its ruling on this critical Kwabena Adu Boahene no-case submission Ghana on Thursday, November 5, 2026, a decision that will provide significant insight into the judiciary's interpretation of evidence sufficiency in high-profile financial crime cases.

Lawyers and compliance officers in Ghana should observe the court's ruling on this no-case submission, as it will provide insight into the judiciary's interpretation of evidence sufficiency in high-profile financial crime cases. The Attorney General's arguments regarding the weight of witness testimony and documentary evidence, and the dismissal of 'tangential' cross-examination, could influence future litigation strategies for both prosecution and defense in similar matters.

Source: Original reporting via Myjoyonline.com