The Court of Appeal has directed the Attorney-General and the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) to disclose a broad range of documents in the ongoing criminal trial involving former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau (NSB), Kwabena Adu Boahene and his wife, Angela Adjei Boateng.
In a unanimous decision delivered on May 28, 2026 the three-member panel, presided over by Justice Georgina Mensah-Datsa, with Justices George Buadi and Ayitey Armah-Tetteh concurring, granted in part an interlocutory appeal filed by the accused persons.
The couple is standing trial over the alleged theft of GH¢49.1 million in public funds.
The appeal challenged an earlier ruling by the High Court, presided over by Justice Eugene Nyante Nyadu, which dismissed an application by the defence, seeking to compel the prosecution to disclose documents deemed necessary for trial preparation.
The appellants argued that the refusal to order disclosure violated their constitutional right to a fair trial, particularly under Article 19 of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantees adequate facilities for the preparation of a defence.
Therefore, the Court of Appeal emphasised that the prosecution has a duty to make reasonable efforts to obtain and disclose relevant materials within its possession or control, including those held by investigative bodies.
The court specifically ordered the prosecution to provide the missing pages (2 to 89) of the bank statement of Advantage Solutions Company Limited held at UMB Bank.
They should also disclose the source of the GH¢49.1 million allegedly transferred from a National Security account into a private company account.
The prosecution was further ordered to produce relevant portions of a file compiled by former National Security Coordinator, Joshua Kyeremeh, relating to the acquisition of a cyber-defence system.
The Attorney-General’s office is to furnish correspondence linked to the use of certain individuals as confidential National Security operatives connected to the case.
And also to ensure disclosure by the immediate past National Security Coordinator on whether the disputed funds were intended solely for the procurement of the cyber defence system.
However, the court declined several requests by the appellants, including demands for “confirmatory evidence” from an Israeli security firm, ISC Holdings Limited, citing ambiguity in the wording of the request.
It also rejected a broad request for disclosure of National Security accounts spanning multiple governments, describing it as overly wide and insufficiently connected to the charges.
The appellate court underscored that disclosure is a continuing obligation throughout criminal proceedings and is essential to safeguarding the right to a fair trial.
It reaffirmed that the prosecution bears the burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt, and any unresolved doubts would inure to the benefit of the accused.
Despite granting parts of the appeal, the court refused an application to stay proceedings at the High Court. It held that disclosure can proceed concurrently with the trial and that the appellants had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify halting the proceedings.
The Court of Appeal set aside portions of the High Court’s earlier ruling and ordered that the specified disclosures be made within a reasonable time.
Lead counsel for the defence, Samuel Atta Akyea, described the ruling as a major victory, insisting that it validates the defence’s long-held position that the prosecution is obligated to disclose all relevant evidence.
He noted that the decision reinforces the constitutional right to a fair hearing under Article 19 of the 1992 Constitution and ensures transparency in the criminal justice process.
According to him, the disclosures could include material that may support the innocence of the accused persons and prevent the prosecution from introducing surprise evidence during the trial.
For more news, join The Chronicle Newspaper channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbBSs55E50UqNPvSOm2z
