Lead counsel for former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General, Kwabena Adu-Boahene and his wife, Angela Adjei-Boateng, Samuel Atta Akyea, has concluded more than 10 weeks of cross-examination of the prosecution’s fourth and final witness in the GH¢49.1 million cybersecurity case.
Mr Atta Akyea ended his cross-examination of EOCO lead investigator, Frank Marshal Cromwell, at the High Court in Accra, on Tuesday, September 8, 2026 after challenging the basis of several conclusions contained in the prosecution’s case.
A major focus of the cross-examination was whether Mr Cromwell had contacted the National Security Coordinator to establish whether an account operated by BNC Communications Bureau Limited at the United Bank for Africa (UBA/UMB) was authorised for national security operations.
Mr Atta Akyea put it to the witness that, without consulting the National Security Coordinator, he could not properly conclude that the account was not authorised by that office.
Mr Cromwell, however, disagreed, maintaining that investigations conducted with the National Signals Bureau showed that the BNC Communications Bureau Limited account was unknown to the Bureau.
He explained that the NSB was familiar with the older BNC account at Fidelity Bank, which had been opened by the former National Security Coordinator, but said the account at UMB was different.
The defence counsel also questioned the investigator about a memo tendered as Exhibit AE, which purportedly contained details of special operations and expenditure involving the disputed funds.
Mr Atta Akyea pointed out that the memo was addressed to the National Security Coordinator and copied to the National Security Adviser and the Director of the National Signals Bureau.
He asked the witness whether he had received or seen any response from the National Security Coordinator, denying or repudiating the contents of the memo. Mr Cromwell responded that no such response had come to his attention.
The defence further questioned why EOCO had not obtained operational records relating to operations listed in the memo, including “Taurus”, “Scorpion”, “Essien 1”, “Essien 2”, “Hive”, “Conquered Fist” and “Calm Life”.
Mr Cromwell acknowledged that such operational records had not been obtained, but maintained that the NSB had indicated that the BNC Communications Bureau Limited account was not known to it.
Dispute over GH¢18m transaction
The witness was also questioned about transactions on the account said to have received the GH¢49.1 million.
Mr Atta Akyea referred to Exhibit U and pointed out that 28 cash withdrawals between November 5, 2020 and January 5, 2021 amounted to approximately GH¢22 million.
He asked whether the investigator could produce evidence showing that the withdrawals were unrelated to expenditure for special operations.
Mr Cromwell said he had not calculated the total amount of the withdrawals, but maintained that his investigation focused on the dissipation of the GH¢49.1 million.
The witness was also confronted with an GH¢18 million fixed-deposit transaction credited to the account on December 8, 2020.
Although he initially disputed the assertion, he subsequently acknowledged that Exhibit U showed an GH¢18 million credit transaction on that date.
Court admits Adu-Boahene statement
During the proceedings, the defence sought to tender a further statement allegedly made by Mr Adu-Boahene to EOCO on May 15, 2026.
The Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, objected to its admission, questioning the document’s authenticity.
Mr Atta Akyea argued that the document bore EOCO signatures and markings and had been supplied to the defence by the prosecution.
Justice Francis Apangabuno Achibonga, presiding over the case, overruled the objection and admitted the statement into evidence as Exhibit 41.
The document contained assertions by Mr Adu-Boahene that his wife, Angela Adjei-Boateng, had been authorised by the National Security Coordinator to facilitate the opening and operation of the BNC Communications Bureau Limited account.
Mr Cromwell described the assertions as an “afterthought” and maintained that investigations had established that the account was not known to the National Signals Bureau.
Investigator challenged over property investigations
Mr Atta Akyea also challenged Mr Cromwell’s evidence concerning properties and vehicles that had been subjected to freezing orders.
He asked the witness to identify portions of the GH¢49.1 million that could be directly traced to the acquisition of properties, including Dorchester Heights.
Mr Cromwell admitted that there was no direct payment from the analysed accounts to Dorchester Heights, although he referred to evidence given by another prosecution witness concerning a project in Kumasi.
The defence further questioned whether searches had been conducted at the Lands Commission and DVLA to establish ownership of the properties and vehicles attributed to the accused persons.
Mr Cromwell said investigations into some of the assets were ongoing but maintained that his investigation into the GH¢49.1 million had been concluded.
He said the investigation established how Mr Adu-Boahene allegedly moved the funds from the Director BNC account into the BNC Communications Bureau Limited account and how the money was subsequently dissipated.
He also maintained that investigators had identified a transfer of GH¢1.5 million to Mayfair which was traceable to the BNC Communications Bureau Limited account through another company.
Cyber defence payment challenged
The defence also challenged the prosecution’s evidence concerning a GH¢9.537 million payment to ISC Holdings in Israel for a purported cyber defence system.
Mr Cromwell rejected a document, Exhibit 40A, which purported to originate from an entity identified as ISC Group Limited, describing it as “not genuine and not authentic.”
According to him, the document contained inconsistencies, including differences in the company name, spelling errors and inadequate identifying information.
He said records obtained from the National Signals Bureau did not include the purported cyber defence system associated with the disputed invoice.
Mr Cromwell further told the court that the NSB had records of a cyber-defence system purchase under a different invoice, but that it was not the same as the disputed invoice, and there was no record of further payment in respect of it.
The witness maintained that the prosecution’s case was based on evidence and not assumptions, despite repeated suggestions from the defence that his investigation had relied on conjecture.
At the end of the cross-examination, Mr Atta Akyea told the court: “That will be all for this witness.”
The Deputy Attorney-General subsequently announced that the State had closed its case.
Defence to file no-case submission
Following the closure of the prosecution’s case, Mr Atta Akyea informed the court that the defence intended to file a submission of no case to answer.
Justice Achibonga directed the accused persons to file their written addresses by September 25, 2026.
The State has been given 14 days from the date of service of the defence submission to file its response, while the accused persons will have seven days thereafter to file a reply.
The court adjourned the case to November 5, 2026 for a ruling on the submission of no case to answer.
For more news, join The Chronicle Newspaper channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbBSs55E50UqNPvSOm2z
