Lawyers for Kwabena Adu-Boahene, former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau (NSB), have filed an action at the Supreme Court seeking to have the apex court of the land remove Justice John Eugene Nyante Nyadu as the adjudicating judge for the ongoing criminal trial of Kwabena Adu-Boahene and two others on grounds of real likelihood of bias.
Samuel Atta Akyea, Lawyer for Kwabena Adu-Boahene, dramatically walked out of court on Friday, 24 October 2025, during proceedings in the ongoing case involving Adu-Boahene and his wife, Angela Adjei Boateng. Atta Akyea, after staging the walkout, told journalists that Justice Nyante Nyadu has demonstrated bias and will be prejudiced against his client.
The application, filed Ex parte by the accused persons (Kwabena Adu-Boahene and Angela Adjei Boateng), lays bare a series of allegations against Justice John Eugene Nyante Nyadu, the presiding judge at the High Court, General Jurisdiction “10”, which the applicants say demonstrate “continuing operative bias” and “prejudgment” in their trial.
The motion, brought under Article 132 of the 1992 Constitution and Section 5 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), seeks an order of prohibition to restrain Justice Nyadu from continuing with the criminal case titled The Republic v. Kwabena Adu-Boahene, Angela Adjei Boateng, Mildred Donkor, and Advantage Solutions Ltd (Suit No. CR/0418/2025).
Grounds of bias cited in the application
The applicants list four key grounds of bias against the trial judge, stating:
“His Lordship is caught in a continuing operative bias demonstrated in his prejudgment and/or predetermination of the critical issues of the essence and import of exculpatory evidence in aid of fair trial as spelt out in Article 19 of the Constitution and judicially pronounced upon in the Supreme Court case of Republic v. Baffoe-Bonnie & 4 Others [2017–2021] 1 SCGLR 327.”
They further contend that:
“The posture of His Lordship, John Eugene Nyante Nyadu, J., that he is determined to continue with the trial when he has judicially predetermined that the exculpatory evidence is not relevant to the case and the defense of the Accused persons/Applicants, amounts to a real likelihood of bias against the Applicants.”
In addition, the application cites the “stampeding” of the trial judge by the Attorney-General, saying:
“The Attorney-General’s stampeding of His Lordship, John Eugene Nyante Nyadu, J., relating to his time in delivering his own decisions and deferring to the Attorney-General’s time dictates is a real likelihood of bias against the Applicants.”
Finally, the applicants note what they describe as the judge’s “special extrajudicial interest” in the case:
“A Court of General Jurisdiction having elected to hear the criminal case from 9 am to 4 pm when he sits has shown special extrajudicial interest in the case, which is a real likelihood of bias disqualifying His Lordship from adjudicating the case as an independent justice delivery umpire.”
Details from the Affidavit of Kwabena Adu-Boahene
In a 42-paragraph affidavit attached to the motion, Mr. Adu-Boahene recounts what he describes as a series of unlawful and prejudicial acts condoned by the trial judge, beginning from their first appearance in court on April 30, 2025.
He narrates that on that day, he, his co-accused, and their lawyers — Samuel Atta Akyea, Kwaku Osei Asare, and Peter Osei Asamoah, were invited to meet officials of the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) at 2:00 p.m., but after waiting for two hours, were “bundled into [an] EOCO vehicle amidst serious protestations from our lawyers.”
They were then “driven to the Court premises and ushered into the High Court, General Jurisdiction ‘10’, with our lawyers following.”
“To our shock and as if it had been pre-arranged, we found the Attorney-General, Hon. Dominic Akuritinga Ayine and his Deputy, Dr. Justice Srem Sai cocooned in the Court,” the affidavit states.
According to Adu-Boahene, the lawyers “could not come to terms with this ambush practice given the fact that they were not officially dressed for Court.”
He continues:
“Right in the Courtroom, a bailiff served our lawyers with the charge sheet and the accompanying facts, apparently signed by the Attorney-General and filed in the General Jurisdiction and not the Criminal Division of the High Court on the 30th day of April 2025 at 12:32 pm, a few hours before we were forcefully paraded to court.”
He argues that “His Lordship condoned this violation of our rights and the law.”
Claims of predetermination and judicial bias
The affidavit further cites direct portions of the judge’s ruling (Exhibit KAA 7) as evidence that he had “closed his mind” on critical matters. Among them are:
“Their request for further disclosure at this stage, therefore, appears to me to be an attempt to stall the progression of proceedings towards commencement of the trial.”
“In the case of the missing pages of Exhibit ‘C’, this court finds the same to constitute an abuse of the opportunity for further disclosures…”
“This evidence is irrelevant in the sense that the logic of it urges the court, if it finds conduct on the part of the other National Security Coordinators to be the same as what is alleged to be wrong now, not to hold the accused persons/applicants culpable and accountable.”
The applicants insist that such statements reveal judicial predetermination and bias, arguing that the judge’s reasoning “violates the principles of fair trial as enshrined in the Constitution.”
Alleged “stampeding” by the Attorney-General
The affidavit also chronicles instances in which the Deputy Attorney-General allegedly pressured the judge to abridge his own timelines in favor of the prosecution.
“The learned Deputy Attorney-General cajoled him to abridge his time to the 3rd day of July 2025, which the Court obliged.”
“The stampeding of His Lordship did not pay off. He did not deliver the reasoned ruling. He merely pronounced that the application is dismissed.”
“Again, the learned Deputy Attorney-General pushed His Lordship to deliver his own ruling earlier than his diary and time would permit. Typical, His Lordship did the Deputy Attorney-General’s bidding and scheduled his ruling to the 17th day of October 2025 at 9 am.”
The applicants maintain that these actions demonstrate that the judge was “deferring to the Attorney-General’s dictates”, contrary to the principle of judicial independence.
Judge’s “special interest” in the case
They further allege that Justice Nyadu’s decision to sit for long hours and multiple days on their case was another sign of bias.
“On the very same day, the 17th day of October 2025, His Lordship said in the open Court that he would continue the trial every Friday from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm. Strangely enough, he added Thursday, ignoring the practice of our lawyers in other courts.”
“The special interest which His Lordship, sitting as a judge of the General Jurisdiction, is giving to this criminal case, brings us to the conclusion that he cannot be an impartial Arbiter.”
The affidavit further concludes emphatically: “On account of the positive judicial confessions as expressed above, the bias of His Lordship in this criminal case against us is very prominent and continuing. His Lordship does not pay obeisance to fair trial, and we pray for his disqualification in the further hearing of the case.”
The walkout explained
These detailed allegations now provide the clear context behind Lawyer Atta Akyea’s decision to walk out of the courtroom last week.
According to sources close to the defence team, the walkout was a matter of principle, stemming from what they perceived as a blatant disregard for fair-trial standards and judicial impartiality, all of which are now documented in the Supreme Court filings
