The High Court in Accra has adjourned to Thursday, October 29, a motion accusing the prosecution in the Kwabena Adu-Boahene trial of misrepresenting witness testimony and documentary evidence in its written submissions.
The application, filed on October 19, seeks to have specific passages in the prosecution’s response to the accused persons’ submission of no case to answer struck out on grounds that they allegedly lack support in the trial record.
At Monday’s hearing, October 26, the presiding judge said the case docket was at his residence and that he had only become aware of the application that morning.
The Attorney-General’s Office, which was reportedly served with the motion on October 19, had not filed a formal response as of Monday’s proceedings.
Thursday’s hearing is expected to take place ahead of the court’s scheduled November 5 ruling on the substantive submission of no case to answer.
Kwabena Adu-Boahene, Angela Adjei Boateng and Advantage Solutions Limited filed the motion through their lawyer, Samuel Atta Akyea. They have also filed a separate reply to the prosecution’s opposition to their submission of no case to answer.
The two filings serve distinct purposes. The reply challenges the prosecution’s legal arguments for requiring the accused persons to open their defence, while the motion seeks to remove specific passages that the applicants allege misrepresent evidence presented during the trial.
Six areas of disputed evidence
In a supporting affidavit, Adu-Boahene identifies six categories of statements in the prosecution’s submissions that the applicants contend contradict or are unsupported by witness testimony and documentary evidence.
The first concerns the prosecution’s assertion that two witnesses testified that a purchase agreement and an invoice relating to a cyber-defence system were not genuine.
The applicants argue that neither witness gave the testimony attributed to them regarding the purchase agreement, admitted as Exhibit X. They point out that the second prosecution witness was discharged on April 27, 2026, while the agreement was admitted through the fourth prosecution witness on June 22.
Regarding the disputed invoices, the affidavit quotes the second witness as saying, “My Lord, it is likely one will be an error.”
It also cites her subsequent explanation that she could not determine which invoice contained the error. The applicants argue that these responses do not support the prosecution’s characterisation of the documents as forged or fabricated.
The second complaint challenges the prosecution’s assertion that the second witness testified that the National Signals Bureau had no contract with ISC Holdings Limited for the cyber-defence system.
According to the affidavit, the witness gave no such testimony. Instead, the applicants say, she acknowledged processing and paying an invoice covering delivery and acceptance milestones for the system.
The third disputed area concerns the prosecution’s interpretation of the witness’s knowledge of an operations account.
The applicants contend that the witness repeatedly explained that her security clearance did not permit her to know about certain national security accounts and activities. They argue that her testimony cannot support the broader claim that the institution itself was unaware of the company or its account.
The fourth complaint relates to a prosecution statement describing a March 2020 invoice as covering a one-time purchase.
The affidavit cites testimony in which the witness acknowledged that the amount under discussion was not the full payment and that another invoice relating to the same acquisition had been processed.
The fifth challenge concerns the prosecution’s assertion that the entire GH¢49.1 million was spent on the accused persons, their friends, associates and families, with none of the money used for an official or approved purpose.
The applicants argue that the third prosecution witness did not give such evidence. Instead, they point to testimony identifying ISC International Security Consultants Holdings Limited as the beneficiary of two exhibits, with remittance information referring to the procurement of a cyber-defence system.
The sixth complaint challenges the prosecution’s reliance on Exhibit H to support an assertion that payments were made from Advantage Solutions Limited’s bank account to Adu-Boahene’s mother for a building project in Kumasi.
Exhibit H, a copy of which is attached to the motion, is a photograph of a building. The applicants argue that it contains no banking or accounting information establishing the alleged payments.
Their affidavit also cites the fourth prosecution witness as acknowledging that there were “no direct payments from accounts analysed towards Dorchester Heights”, the building identified as the Kumasi project.
Applicants accuse prosecution of making unsupported claims
The applicants argue that introducing facts unsupported by evidence through written submissions amounts to giving evidence from the bar.
They are asking the court to strike out the disputed passages on the grounds that they allegedly misrepresent the evidence on record.
In its October 9 submissions, signed by Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai, the prosecution maintained that sufficient evidence had been presented to establish the essential elements of the offences.
The prosecution argued that its case rested substantially on documentary evidence that had not been undermined by the defence’s cross-examination and urged the court to dismiss the submission of no case to answer.
Those submissions were filed before the motion and do not directly address the specific allegations raised in the application.
The absence of a formal response from the prosecution as of Monday does not, by itself, establish the applicants’ claims.
The court is expected to hear the motion on Thursday, October 29, ahead of its November 5 ruling on whether the accused persons have a case to answer.
