The Court of Appeal has partly granted multiple requests by the former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau, Kwabena Adu-Boahene, and his wife, Angela Adjei-Boateng, for the disclosure of certain documents, including bank statements of one of his companies and other issues relating to the purchase of a cyber defence system for the state.
Mr. Adu-Boahene, his wife, Angela Adjei-Boateng, and two others have been charged with allegedly stealing GH¢49.1 million from the state.
The Attorney General, as part of the disclosures, provided portions of the bank statements of Advantage Solutions Limited, a company incorporated by the couple, omitting other pages that the defence said are exculpatory to their case.
The accused had filed an application asking the trial court to order the prosecution to provide the missing pages, but the court, then presided over by Justice Eugene Nyante Nyadu, dismissed the request, holding that the accused persons could produce those pages later as part of their witness statements.
The lawyers therefore appealed the decision, arguing that the trial judge erred, particularly because the accused persons had not been ordered to open their defence.
“The upshot is that his Lordship, in his prejudgment, has effectively dismissed any potential submission of no case to answer,” they argued.
They further argued that the ruling aided the prosecution in concealing vital and relevant exculpatory documents and information regarding the accused persons.
The lawyers further contended that Adu-Boahene and his wife could not obtain the missing pages of Advantage Solutions Company Limited’s UMB Bank account, as the account had been frozen by the Economic and Organized Crime Office (EOCO).
A three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, Justices Georgina Mensah-Datsa (presiding), George Buadi and Ayitey Armah-Tetteh, directed the Attorney General to provide the couple with the missing pages (pages2-89) of the account statements of Advantage Solutions Limited.
It was the position of the court that, despite the fact that Adu-Boahene and his wife have access to their bank statements, the prosecution has disclosed portions of the said statements; hence, it is their responsibility “to provide the missing pages to avoid the appearance of concealing some evidence connected to this case.”
The court also agreed with the lawyers for the accused that the trial judge misconceived his remit at the case management conference stage in a criminal case when he began evaluating evidence before the trial itself commenced.
National Security Records
Meanwhile, the court has partly granted the couple’s request for the disclosure of the National Security Coordinator’s accounts.
The couple had filed an application for further disclosures, asking the trial court to order the prosecution to disclose all National Security Coordinators’ special operational accounts, spanning 33 years and five Presidents – from 1992 to date.
The court, presided over by Justice Eugene Nyante Nyadu, in his July 3, 2025 ruling, dismissed the request for further disclosure, stating that the accused did not provide justification for it.
But the Court of Appeal, in its judgment yesterday, said the accused did not indicate any connection to the specific charges and that the accused’s request was too broad.
It, however, limited the disclosures of the National Security Coordinator’s account connected to Mr. Adu-Boahene and directed the Attorney General to disclose the same to him.
The court also ordered the Attorney General to provide the accused with portions of the file compiled by former National Security Coordinator Joshua Kyeremeh, relating to the acquisition of the cyber defence system at issue in the case.
Again, the court ordered that the immediately exited National Security Coordinator make full disclosure as to whether the sum of GH₵49.1 million was intended solely for the importation of the cyber defence system.
“The prosecution bears a duty not only to disclose material in its possession, but also those within the control of the investigative agencies or that could be obtained with reasonable diligence,” the court held.
The court, however, refused the accused person’s request for a stay of the trial pending disclosure of the requested documents, holding that compliance with the disclosure order can be undertaken concurrently with the case continuing.
