The legal team representing former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General, Kwabena Adu-Boahene, and his co-accused has challenged the prosecution’s evidence in the alleged GH¢49.1 million financial loss case, raising questions about the ownership of the disputed funds, authorisation of transactions and the alleged forged documents.
The defence has argued in its ‘submission of no case’ that evidence from prosecution witnesses and exhibits tendered before the trial High Court has not established that the GH¢49.1 million constituted public funds, that the transactions were unauthorised or that the accused persons caused any financial loss to the State.
The case centres on three cheques of GH¢27.1 million, GH¢1 million and GH¢21 million, amounting to GH¢49.1 million issued from an account at Fidelity Bank and subsequently linked to payments into an account at Universal Merchant Bank (UMB).
The prosecution alleges that the accused persons unlawfully obtained the money under the pretext of procuring a cyber-defence system.
However, the defence has drawn attention to what it describes as inconsistencies in the prosecution’s own evidence, particularly regarding the status of the Fidelity Bank account.
According to the defence, prosecution witnesses described the account as one associated with the National Security Coordinator’s special operations rather than an ordinary public account.
It further argued that Exhibit 35 showed the account was opened in 2017 in the name of the National Security Coordinator and was not established in accordance with the Public Financial Management Act, 2016.
The defence maintained that the account did not receive funds from public sources but rather deposits from private individuals, including Adu-Boahene and other persons.
It also pointed out that no audit report had been produced to establish a loss of GH¢49.1 million and that there was no complaint from the National Security apparatus regarding the alleged missing funds.
The defence further relied on the testimony of the prosecution’s second witness, Edith Ruby Opokua Adumuah, former Head of Finance of the then Bureau of National Communications (BNC).She reportedly told the court that the entire departmental budget of the BNC for 2020 was GH¢13.1 million.
The witness also testified that she was unaware of any theft involving GH¢49.1 million and had not reported any such incident.
This, according to the defence, raises questions about the prosecution’s allegation that the disputed amount was stolen from the BNC’s budget.
DISPUTED CALCULATION OF THE LOSS
The defence has also questioned how the prosecution arrived at the alleged financial loss, pointing to figures contained in its own evidence.
It said GH¢9.537 million was paid to ISC Holdings of Israel, GH¢7.2 million was transferred to the National Security Coordinator’s account, GH¢2.347 million was returned to the Coordinator’s account, while GH¢16 million was placed on fixed deposit.
It further cited Exhibit U, which reportedly showed that the UMB account recorded total credits of GH¢179.46 million, including GH¢27.94 million deposited between August and November 2020.
The defence argued that these transactions contradicted the suggestion that the UMB account’s only source of funds was the disputed GH¢49.1 million.
On the authorisation of the three cheques, the lawyers pointed to the bank mandate, which identified the National Security Coordinator and other officials as joint signatories.
They maintained that the cheques were signed in accordance with the bank mandate and that prosecution witnesses testified that the National Security Coordinator personally authorised and approved all three transactions.
The defence also raised questions about the investigation, arguing that the current and immediate past National Security Coordinators, as well as ministers responsible for national security, were not interviewed.
It further cited evidence from the investigator suggesting that the late National Security Coordinator would have been investigated and possibly charged had he been alive.
UMB ACCOUNT AND ALLEGED CONCEALMENT
The defence also challenged the prosecution’s allegation that the UMB account was deliberately opened to conceal the identity of the BNC.It argued that the account was referred to by the bank as “BNC Operations” and that it was the only account bearing the relevant payee name into which the cheques could be paid.
The lawyers further maintained that BNC Communications Bureau Limited existed before February 2020 and already had a banking relationship with UMB.
They also cited the testimony of the second prosecution witness, who reportedly described the UMB account as a National Security front account used for special operations, adding that she did not have the security clearance to know about it.
ALLEGED FORGED DOCUMENTS
On the allegations of forged contracts and invoices relating to the cyber-defence system, the defence pointed to the investigator’s testimony that the payment milestones corresponded with invoices presented.
It further argued that ISC Holdings received the payments corresponding with the SWIFT transfers tendered in evidence, including the US$1.75 million transaction.
The defence questioned why the alleged forgery had not been independently verified with ISC Holdings.
PROPERTY AND LIFESTYLE ALLEGATIONS
The defence has also disputed the prosecution’s allegation that the entire GH¢49.1 million was used for the benefit of the accused persons, their associates and family members.
It argued that the prosecution’s own figures accounted for payments to ISC Holdings and other suppliers, transfers to the National Security Coordinator’s account, fixed deposits and withdrawals by National Security operatives for special operations.
Regarding allegations that proceeds from the transactions were used to acquire private properties, luxury vehicles, a fertiliser business and finance lavish lifestyles, the defence said the investigator acknowledged that no portion of the disputed GH¢49.1 million had been linked to those assets.
It also argued that no title deeds or other ownership documents had been produced to establish the allegations.
The defence further referred to a suit filed by persons claiming ownership of the Kobby Keach K. Hotel against the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) over the attachment of the property.
On the third accused company, Advantage Solutions, the investigator reportedly identified the second accused as its sole shareholder and beneficial owner.
The first accused, according to the evidence cited by the defence, was neither a director nor a shareholder of the company, which was incorporated in 2008.
QUESTION OVER ADU-BOAHENE’S POSITION
Another issue raised by the defence concerns the position Adu-Boahene held at the time of the alleged transactions.
The prosecution alleges that he abused his office as Director-General of the NSB to obtain UMB clearance for the US$1.75 million transfer.
However, the defence argued that the NSB was established on December 29, 2020, whereas the transaction in question occurred in February 2020.
It further pointed to a payslip tendered in evidence, which identified Adu-Boahene as a Principal Analyst at the National Security Council Secretariat at the time.
The defence contends that this raises questions about the capacity in which he allegedly acted when the transaction was undertaken.
CREDIBILITY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS
The testimony of the third prosecution witness has also featured prominently in the defence’s challenge.
The defence questioned the reliability of spreadsheets and handwritten records presented by the witness, arguing that they did not reconcile with the relevant bank statements.
It further cited the witness’s admission that some entries were made based on questions put to her by her lawyer.
The defence also highlighted an apparent discrepancy concerning the dates of handwritten records converted into an Excel spreadsheet.
According to the defence, the witness initially testified that the documents were recorded in 2020, but their electronic metadata indicated that the document was created in May 2026.
MONEY LAUNDERING CHARGES
The defence has also raised a legal issue concerning the money-laundering charges.
It argued that the prosecution must establish that the disputed funds constituted proceeds of unlawful activity and that the accused persons knew, or had the requisite knowledge, of their alleged criminal origin.
It further questioned the application of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2020 (Act 1044), which came into force on December 29, 2020, to alleged conduct said to have occurred earlier in 2020.
The issue, according to the defence, raises questions about the applicable law and the timing of the alleged offences.
The accused persons have not yet opened their defence, as the trial court is expected to rule on the prosecution’s case following a submission of no case to answer.
The ruling, scheduled for November 5, 2026, will determine whether the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to require the accused persons to enter their defence.
Until the court delivers its decision, the issues raised by the defence remain arguments arising from the prosecution’s evidence and do not constitute judicial findings on the guilt or innocence of the accused persons.
For more news, join The Chronicle Newspaper channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbBSs55E50UqNPvSOm2z
