The trial of former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General, KwabenaAdu-Boahene, and his wife took a lighter turn on Thursday when the presiding judge, Justice John Eugene Nyante Nyadu, jokingly questioned defence counsel, Samuel Atta-Kyea over his posture toward the bench.
In a light-hearted remark that drew hearty laughter from the bar and gallery, Justice Nyadu quizzed why Mr. Atta-Kyea would “smile with me in court and go outside to seek a prohibition against me,” a reference to the defence’s recent unsuccessful attempt at the Supreme Court to bar him from hearing the case.
The comment came after Mr. Atta-Kyea had complained about the Deputy Attorney-General (DAG),Dr. Justice Srem-Sai’s indifference toward him in the courtroom, only for the DAG to act pleasantly outside proceedings.
Justice Nyadu, clearly seeking to cool rising courtroom tempers, made the joke to calm tensions as the defence and prosecution fiercely opposed each other over the admissibility of documents emanating from the NSB.
Battle over confidential exhibits
The heated exchanges were sparked by the prosecution’s attempt to tender confidential NSB correspondence and invoices submitted to the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) relating to digitised investigative systems and cyber-security equipment procurement.
Ruby Adumauah, Head of Finance at NSB and Prosecution 2nd witness (PW2), was testifying to a series of invoices — including one for a cyber-security system and another for a digitised investigative audit suite — when the prosecution sought to tender the documents.
Mr. Atta-Kyea objected, arguing the documents contained classified national security information, including supplier details, and tendering them would compromise state security.
He cited Article 135 of the 1992 Constitution, urging the court to refer the matter to the Supreme Court to determine whether disclosure would prejudice national security.
“These documents are marked confidential by the NSB and touch on cyber-defence systems. If the Attorney-General refuses to claim privilege, the accused can rely on Article 135,” he argued, insisting that the court could not determine the matter.
But the DAG countered that the privilege belongs to the state — not a private party. “The government is not claiming privilege. A non-state actor cannot force the state to claim state-secret protection,” Dr.Srem-Sai submitted.
Court ruling
Justice Nyadu overruled the objection, holding that a Supreme Court referral applies only where the state asserts national security privilege.“In this instance, the state is not claiming such privilege. The objection is unmeritorious and is dismissed,” he ruled.
The documents were admitted into evidence. The invoices tendered included:Invoice No. 28 – Final payment for digitised investigative system, which NSB paid US$289,400; Invoice No. 32 – Cyber-defence system procurement -Total US$7 million; paid US$1.7 million
Invoice No. MSC – Payment for digitised investigative audit system and the payment was US$1,185,000, Electronic swift payment – US$87,500 to ISC Holdings.
Judge cautions lawyer over social media posts
In another brief exchange, Justice Nyadu warned defence lawyer KwesiBotchway Jnr, a known member of the New Patriotic Party’s communications team, over social media commentary on the case. “Mr.AkwesiBotchway, I have been reading your posts on Facebook and they are prejudicial,” the judge cautioned.
According to him, if Mr.Botchway disagreed with the court, he should assist the defence team to appeal the decision rather than resort to social media to make prejudicial comments.
The judge further questioned whether Mr.Botchway had even taken the time to read the full reasoning of the court before posting online. He urged the young lawyer to desist from such conduct or face the consequences. The case has been adjourned to November 7.
For more news, join The Chronicle Newspaper channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbBSs55E50UqNPvSOm2z
