The high-profile criminal trial involving former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene has entered a crucial new phase after the Accra High Court gave his lawyers until September 25, 2026, to file a submission of no case to answer.
The directive came after the prosecution officially closed its case, having called four witnesses in support of allegations surrounding the alleged diversion of GH¢49.1 million in state funds.
Lead defence lawyer Samuel Atta Akyea will now have the opportunity to argue that the evidence presented by prosecutors is insufficient to require Adu-Boahene and the other accused persons to open their defence.
A successful no-case submission could potentially bring an end to some or all of the charges without the accused persons being required to present evidence. However, the court must first consider the arguments from both sides before making a ruling.
Prosecutors allege that GH¢49.1 million intended for the procurement of a cybersecurity system was transferred from an account linked to National Security operations into an account belonging to BNC Communications Bureau Limited, a private company associated with Adu-Boahene and his wife, Angela Adjei-Boateng.
The prosecution’s final witness, EOCO investigator Frank Marshall Cromwell, underwent extensive cross-examination by Atta Akyea, with the defence challenging aspects of the financial evidence and conclusions reached during the investigation.
The defence has also questioned why certain former National Security officials were not called by the prosecution to testify.
Adu-Boahene, his wife and the other accused persons have pleaded not guilty to the charges against them and remain on bail. The charges include allegations of conspiracy, stealing, defrauding by false pretences, money laundering, using public office for profit and causing financial loss to the state.
With the prosecution now resting its case, September 25 could become a major turning point in the closely watched trial.
All eyes will now be on Atta Akyea’s legal arguments as the defence attempts to convince the court that prosecutors have failed to establish a sufficient case for Adu-Boahene to answer.
