Ghana High Court: Dismisses Adu Boahene GHS49.1M Theft Case Application

• Ghana's High Court dismissed an application by Kwabena Adu Boahene's lawyers to strike out parts of the Attorney General's submissions.
• The court affirmed it will rely solely on evidence on record, not lawyers' interpretations, when making determinations.
• Kwabena Adu Boahene, former National Signals Bureau Director General, faces charges related to an alleged GHS49.1 million theft from a cybersecurity procurement.
• His defence has filed a 142-page 'submission of no case to answer,' arguing against the full amount being stolen and questioning transaction authorization.
• The defence seeks an early termination of the trial, similar to a past ambulance trial where accused individuals were acquitted without presenting a defence. However, that acquittal has since been appealed to the Supreme Court by the Attorney General.

This principle ensures that only substantiated facts influence the court's determination, emphasizing the critical need for robust, evidence-backed arguments from all parties.

Ghana's High Court recently dismissed an application filed by legal representatives for Kwabena Adu Boahene, the former Director General of the National Signals Bureau, and his co-accused. The application sought to remove specific portions from the Attorney General's written submissions in the ongoing GHS49.1m theft case Ghana.

Justice Achibonga, in his ruling, clarified that any grievances regarding the alleged introduction of new evidence or incorrect attribution of testimony are not material to the court's consideration. The judiciary will exclusively depend on the evidence formally presented and recorded, rather than merely accepting lawyers' interpretations or claims within their submissions. Should any evidence be found to lack substantiation, the court retains the authority to expunge it from the record.

This stage of the proceedings is focused on establishing a prima facie case, which means determining if there is enough evidence to proceed, rather than making a definitive judgment on guilt or innocence.

The trial against Kwabena Adu Boahene stems from initial allegations made by Attorney General Dr. Dominic Ayine, who claimed that GHS49.1 million had been misappropriated. This substantial sum was reportedly stolen through what was described as a fictitious US$7 million cybersecurity procurement. Beyond the alleged theft, the Attorney General also referenced the acquisition of luxury vehicles, expensive houses, and various properties located abroad.

The case has garnered significant public attention, with media outlets closely following its developments. An Israeli company, ISE Holdings Limited, has been identified as central to the alleged cybersecurity procurement, prompting further scrutiny into the transactions involved.

Following the prosecution's conclusion of its case, which involved testimony from four witnesses, the defence for Kwabena Adu Boahene has submitted a comprehensive 142-page document titled 'submission of no case to answer.' This legal maneuver argues that the prosecution has failed to present sufficient evidence to warrant the accused being called upon to mount a defence. The Attorney General has responded with a 25-page counter-argument, maintaining that there is indeed a case requiring a response.

A central point of contention raised by the defence questions whether the entire GHS49.1 million was, in fact, dishonestly appropriated. While acknowledging that three cheques were issued and funds were transferred, the defence disputes the allegation that the full amount constitutes theft. They aim to account for GHS34 million, representing nearly 70% of the total alleged sum, by presenting banking records and transaction details linked to the National Security Coordinator. The defence asserts that the prosecution bears the burden of meticulously tracing these funds and proving which specific transactions constituted dishonest appropriation, emphasizing that the mere movement of money through an account does not inherently prove theft.

Furthermore, the defence's arguments delve into the authorization of these transactions. They contend that the source account from which the funds originated was under the direct control of the then National Security Coordinator, Joshua Kyeremeh, designated for special security operations. Crucially, the defence relies on evidence suggesting that the coordinator himself either signed or authorized the cheques in question, thereby challenging the premise of unauthorized or illicit financial activity.

The 'submission of no case to answer' represents a strategic attempt by the defence to achieve an early termination of the proceedings, arguing that the prosecution's evidence is insufficient to compel the accused to present their own case. This approach has historical precedent in Ghana's legal landscape, notably in the ambulance trial involving Dr. Cassel, Ato Forson, and Richard Jakpa. In that instance, the High Court initially rejected their 'no-case' submissions, but the Court of Appeal subsequently overturned this decision, leading to their acquittal and discharge without requiring them to present a defence. However, this decision has since been appealed by the Attorney General to the Supreme Court.

This highlights the potential for such submissions to conclude a trial prematurely if the prosecution's evidence is deemed inadequate. The recent High Court ruling, while separate from the 'no case to answer' application, reinforces the judiciary's strict reliance on documented evidence. This principle ensures that only substantiated facts influence the court's determination, emphasizing the critical need for robust, evidence-backed arguments from all parties. It underscores that judicial decisions will be based solely on the evidence on record, rather than on lawyers' interpretations or claims within their submissions.

This ruling clarifies that Ghanaian courts will strictly rely on evidence on record, not merely lawyers' submissions, when considering applications to strike out portions of arguments. For defence lawyers, it underscores the critical importance of a robust 'no case to answer' submission as a strategic avenue for early termination of proceedings, requiring meticulous scrutiny of the prosecution's evidence to demonstrate insufficiency.

Source: Original reporting via Myjoyonline.com