KEY POINTS

• Adu-Boahene’s lawyers want the court to remove disputed portions of the prosecution’s submissions.

• The defence challenges claims concerning NSB contracts, GH¢49.1 million and a Kumasi property.

• The court is yet to rule on the application or determine whether the accused persons have a case to answer.

Lawyers representing former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene have asked Ghana’s High Court to remove disputed portions of the prosecution’s written arguments, alleging that the Deputy Attorney-General misrepresented witness testimony and relied on statements not supported by the court record.

The application, filed on October 19, 2026, challenges the prosecution’s response to the accused persons’ submission of no case to answer. The defence maintains that legal arguments must be based on evidence presented in court, not statements allegedly attributed to witnesses without supporting records. The allegations have not been determined by the court.

Defence challenges prosecution’s account of witness testimony

Counsel Samuel Atta Akyea filed the application, arguing that parts of the prosecution’s written submissions contained statements that witnesses had not made during the trial.

The defence alleges that the prosecution incorrectly described certain documents as forged or fabricated and attributed conclusions to witnesses that were not established in their testimony.

It argues that lawyers cannot introduce new evidence through written submissions and that any claims unsupported by the official court record should not influence the judge’s decision.

The defence has asked the court to strike out the disputed passages or, alternatively, disregard them when deciding whether the accused persons have a case to answer.

Lawyers dispute claims about NSB contracts

One of the main areas of disagreement concerns Exhibits X and 11, which the prosecution allegedly described as forged or fabricated documents.

The defence argues that prosecution witnesses PW2 and PW4 did not testify that the documents were forged.

It also questions how PW2 could have testified about Exhibit X, noting that the witness was discharged on April 27, while the exhibit was admitted through PW4 on June 22, 2026.

The lawyers further dispute the prosecution’s alleged claim that PW2 testified that the NSB had no contract with ISC Holdings Limited for the supply of a cyber-defence system.

According to the defence, the witness acknowledged the processing and payment of an invoice connected to the system, including milestones relating to delivery and acceptance.

The lawyers also challenge the prosecution’s alleged assertion that the NSB did not know BNC Communications Bureau Limited or its bank account. They maintain that the witness’s comments about the account were based on an assumption that it was an operational account.

GH¢49.1 million transaction becomes a key dispute

The application also challenges the prosecution’s interpretation of evidence relating to GH¢49.1 million associated with the cyber-defence system transaction.

The defence disputes the claim that PW3 testified that the entire amount was spent on the accused persons, their friends, associates and family members rather than for an official or approved purpose.

According to the lawyers, PW3 identified ISC International Security Consultants Holdings Limited as the beneficiary of Exhibits 19 and 20. They also say the witness read remittance information linking the transaction to the procurement of a cyber-defence system under invoice NSC006.

The defence argues that this testimony does not support the prosecution’s interpretation of how the money was used.

The court will have to consider the disputed arguments in the context of the evidence properly admitted during the proceedings.

Defence questions evidence about Kumasi property

The lawyers have also challenged the prosecution’s alleged reliance on Exhibit H to suggest that money was transferred from a company’s bank account to Adu-Boahene’s mother for a building project in Kumasi.

According to the defence, Exhibit H is a photograph of a building and contains no bank transaction details or accounting annotations establishing that the alleged payments were made.

The lawyers further refer to testimony attributed to PW4, who allegedly acknowledged that no direct payments from the accounts analysed during the investigation were made towards Dorchester Heights, the property identified in the proceedings as the Kumasi project.

The defence argues that the prosecution cannot use the photograph alone to establish financial transactions that are not documented in the exhibit.

Defence says legal submissions cannot replace evidence

The lawyers contend that the prosecution’s written arguments should not include factual claims that were never established through witness testimony or documentary evidence.

They describe the alleged introduction of unsupported material as “evidence from the bar”, an expression used to refer to assertions made by counsel that have not been properly established as evidence before the court.

The defence maintains that allowing such claims to influence the proceedings could undermine the fairness of the trial.

It is now asking the court to determine whether the challenged passages should be removed or excluded from consideration when deciding whether the accused persons must open their defence.

The application contains allegations by the defence, and the court has yet to rule on their merits.

Case reaches the no-case-to-answer stage

The application follows the prosecution’s closure of its case on September 8, 2026.

The accused persons filed their submission of no case to answer on September 25, while the prosecution submitted its opposition on October 9.

A no-case submission asks a court to determine whether the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to require the accused persons to enter a defence.

If the court finds that the prosecution has not presented sufficient evidence to establish a case requiring an answer, it may rule in favour of the accused persons at that stage. If the submission is rejected, the defence may be required to present its case.

The court’s consideration of the submission will determine the next stage of the proceedings.