The High Court, General Jurisdiction 10, presided over by Justice John Eugene Nyadu Nyante, has ordered the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) to submit an audio recording of the interrogation of Edith Ruby Adumauah, Head of Finance at the National Signals Bureau (NSB), by the close of Thursday, November 13.
The order follows an application by Samuel Atta-Kyea, counsel for the former Director-General of the NSB, Kwabena Adu Boahene, who is standing trial for alleged financial impropriety. Mr Atta-Kyea argued that the said recording contained material that could exonerate his client.
Continuing his cross-examination of Ms. Adumauah, the defence lawyer said EOCO had informed the witness that her engagements were being recorded and, therefore, requested the court to order the production of the audio as part of further disclosures.
However, the Deputy Attorney-General (DAG) opposed the request, arguing that the grounds for further disclosure had not been satisfied. The DAG contended that a recent Supreme Court pronouncement cited by the defence did not constitute binding precedent, but was merely an obiter dictum.
Mr. Atta-Kyea, rebutting, insisted that Section 2(1) (g) of the Practice Direction on Disclosure explicitly lists “audio recordings” as material subject to disclosure.
Justice Nyadu Nyante, in his ruling, overruled the prosecution’s objection and directed that if the audio recording of Ms. Adumauah’s interrogation existed, it should be procured by the Attorney-General and filed as part of further disclosures.
During the resumed cross-examination, Ms. Adumauah confirmed that her house had been searched by EOCO, but maintained that she was never charged with any offence.
She also confirmed that she had written a statement for EOCO dated May 9, 2025, after the accused persons were arraigned on April 30, 2025.
Pressed on why EOCO granted her bail, Ms. Adumauah stated that she did not know, but acknowledged that she was informed her interrogation was being recorded.
Mr. Atta-Kyea further questioned her over two separate invoices issued by ISC Holdings Limited, both bearing the same invoice number, but for different items — one for a Digitised Investigative Audit System and another for a Cyber Defence System.
Ms. Adumauah explained that payment was made only for the Digitised Investigative Audit System addressed to the National Security Council, and not the one addressed to BNC Accra Ghana.
The case has been adjourned to December 9, 10 and 11
Continuation of cross examination by Atta-Kyea
Q. I put it to you that because you were a suspect EOCO searched your house, is that not so?
A. I was of the understanding that anyone who is sent there their house is searched.
Q. So was your house searched at all?
A. Yes.
Q. More than one house of yours was searched, is that not so?
A. Not so my Lord. I was asked to identify whether I had other house but it was … where I lived.
Q. Do you have other houses apart from that which was searched?
A. Yes my Lord
Q. Have you ever filed an asset declaration form?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember the last statement you write out for the benefit of EOCO?
A. No.
Witness shown a statement and she confirms writing it.
Q. What is the date.
A. 9th May 2025
Q. Do you know when the accused persons were arraigned?
A. No.
Q. Can you tell the court the date on the charge sheet?
A. 30th April 2025.
Q. I suggest to you that is the date the accused persons were arraigned before this honourable court?
A. I’m not aware.
Q. I suggest to you that post the arraignment of the accused persons before this honourable court you have a statement you referred to, 9th May 2025.
A. Yes
Q. From the document you’re holding you were not charged with any offence?
A. Yes
Q. Even against the backdrop that you were investigated by EOCO you were not charged?
A. Yes
Q. And you are very happy for that?
A. Yes, my Lord. I believe investigations are supposed to find out the truth so if EOCO deemed it fit that I’m not charged, I cannot say anything about it.
Q. The three statements you mentioned that you delivered to EOCO, they exclude the one you gave on 9th May, 2025, is that not so?
A. No my Lord, I wrote three statements including this one.
Q. When you came to the space of EOCO they told you the interrogation is being recorded, is that not so.
A. Yes my Lord
Atta-Kyea: We pray that the court orders EOCO to submit the recording as it will show that the witness said things that go in our favour.
DAG: We are opposed to the request on ground that the subject matter of the request does not satisfy the grounds for further disclosure. The Supreme Court recent decision is to all intents and purposes an obiter and regardless of how elaborate the court put it down cannot constitute a ratio this engender.
The issue before the court is what determine what the ratio of the decision is. If the court decides to veer off and make pronouncements on matters, which do not form part of matters before it and in respect of matters, which arguments were not taken, the authorities on what constitutes judicial precedent is clear on the matter.
And, therefore, this court and all other courts are not in any way bound to follow a decision, which is contrary to precedent. The precedent on this matter stick stands, which the Supreme Court well considered decision on Baffoe-Bonnie, which this court digested in its erudite most immaculate ruling, which is that relevant is a key consideration in determining an application for further disclosure.
Atta-Akyea: As a matter of fact the witness has stated that she was informed by EOCO that her engagements with EOCO were being recorded. Section 2(1)(g) of the practice direction, a material for disclosure includes audio recordings. I don’t see how this legal request informs the basis of an opposition on point of law.
The denial of the audio recording will tantamount to concealment of evidence against the clear provision of the law that exculpatory evidence be ordered for use whether the attorney General has disclosed them or not. I pray that the objection be overruled the opposition for further disclosures so that in the ultimate interest of justice nm Lord will know what was said at EOCO and what is being said here.
Court: The Prosecution is overruled. The audio recording in the custody of EOCO in respect of the interrogation of Edith Ruby Pokuaa if any. They should be procured by the attorney General and filed as a further disclosure. Same to be filed by close of day tomorrow (Nov. 13).
Cross examination continues
Q. You obtained your LLB from which university?
A. Mountcrest university.
Q. Did you read some criminal law at all?
A. My Lord I did, but I’m here on behalf of National security secretariat to testify on financial matters, which is very verifiable in the office.
Q. You are here to testify to truth, is that not so?
A. Yes
Q. And the truth you are required to testify to may not only be in your office, but outside your office. Is that not so?
A. I have a letter from the office, which asked me to come to court to testify. And I have a copy.
Q. Do you have a copy right with you here?
A. No.
Q. It is the case that it is not a suspect who is admitted to bail.
A. I don’t know.
Q. I’m putting it to you that the only reason EOCO gave you bail on pain of incarceration is because you were a suspect?
A. I do not know
Q. At the last sitting you were making a comparison of two invoices, which had the same invoice number generated by ISC Holdings Limited. Can you refresh your memory on this matter?
A. Yes.
Q. The items as described in the invoices are different, is that not so?
A. There are two different items with the same invoice number. I remember I said we had not seen the one for procurement for cyber defence system in our procurement records for payment. What we had was Digitised investigating auditing system.
Q. With one of the invoices is it addressed to who?
A. One is addressed to National security council Ghana, which was the one we paid for.
Q. And the other is addressed to?
A. BNC Accra Ghana
Q. Madam said the other invoice is addressed to BNC Accra Ghana?
A. Yes
Q. Is there also NSC/BNC?
A. My lord is BNC
Q. Kindly look at the other one what is there?
A. National Security Council
Q. So madam cannot you see a customer ID in respect of the purchase of the invoice number NSC006, which relates to digitised investigative audit system (in Exhibit B4)
A. The customer ID is NSC?
Q. What is the customer ID on the invoice relating to the cyber security equipment (ID1)?
A. The customer ID in relation to procurement of cyber security ID1 is NSC/BNC.
A. How do you come to know the invoices relating to digitised investigative audit system
A. The digitalised investigative audit system, which is also NSC006 was what we make payment for
Q. Who delivered the invoice to you
A. As I mentioned earlier my boss who sent it to me or sometime I’m copied in an email, but I still take instructions from my boss to do.
Q. When your boss does not send a copy of the invoice to you and you are not kept loop in the email, you have no knowledge of the invoice?
A. Yes
For more news, join The Chronicle Newspaper channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbBSs55E50UqNPvSOm2z
