Lead counsel for former Director-General
of the National Signals Bureau (NSB) Kwabena Adu-Boahene, Angela Adjei Boateng and Advantage Solutions Ltd., Samuel Atta Akyea, has filed a comprehensive submission of no case to answer, arguing that the prosecution has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused persons. The defence contends that the prosecution’s case is fundamentally weakened by the absence of material evidence, significant inconsistencies in the testimonies of key witnesses and its failure to call witnesses whose evidence, it argues, is essential to establishing the allegations before the Accra High Court.
The submission, filed on 25th September 2026 after the prosecution closed its case, is asking the High Court to acquit the accused persons without requiring them to open their defence. According to the defence, the evidential gaps, contradictions and failure to present material witnesses mean that the Republic has not established a case sufficiently strong to warrant an answer from the accused persons.
At the centre of the case is the alleged GH¢49.1 million said by the prosecution to have been dishonestly appropriated under the guise of procuring a US$7 million cyber-defence system. The defence challenges the prosecution’s characterisation of the source account, the ownership of the funds, the purpose of the three cheques and the alleged diversion of the money.
One of the principal challenges concerns the Fidelity Bank account from which the three cheques—GH¢27.1 million, GH¢1 million and GH¢21 million—were drawn. The defence points to evidence from prosecution witnesses that the account was a special-operations account controlled by the National Security Coordinator and identified on the bank’s records as “Coordinator’s Account – NSC”, rather than a “State BNC” or “Public BNC” account. PW2 also testified that the National Security Coordinator controlled the financial transactions and that A1(Adu-Boahene) could not transact on the account without the Coordinator’s approval and participation.
The defence further highlights evidence that all three cheques bore the signature of the late National Security Coordinator, with PW2 (Ruby Edith Aduamoah), the Head of Finance at the NSB, confirming that they were funds for special operations. PW4, the lead investigator, admitted that he was not privy to the discussions between the Coordinator and Adu-Boahene concerning the cheques and could not say where the Coordinator intended the funds to be lodged or for what purpose.
A major evidential gap identified by the defence is therefore the absence of evidence establishing the purpose of the GH¢49.1 million. PW2 repeatedly stated that she did not know the purpose of the three cheques, while PW4 conceded that no authorising document came into the possession of investigators showing the particular purpose for which the cheques were issued. He also accepted that the purpose could not be established from the bank statements.
The defence also places significant emphasis on the prosecution’s failure to call or properly investigate material witnesses, particularly the then National Security Coordinator, Joshua Kyeremeh, who signed the three cheques and, according to the evidence, would have been among those with knowledge of their purpose. The submission also identifies the failure to interview Seth Kwadwo Danso, the Director of Finance at the Office of the National Security Coordinator and a signatory to the account.
The alleged non-delivery of the cyber-defence system is another major point of attack. The defence argues that ISC Holdings Limited, the alleged supplier of the system, was never contacted by investigators to establish whether the system was delivered, whether the invoice was genuine, or what happened to the equipment. The submission further points to documentary evidence concerning payment milestones linked to delivery and acceptance of the system.
The defence also challenges the prosecution’s treatment of Invoice NSC006, which investigators characterised as questionable because another document bearing the same number was found in the records of the National Signals Bureau. The submission notes that investigators did not verify the alleged discrepancy with ISC Holdings, the issuer of the invoices.
On the alleged financial loss and tracing of the GH¢49.1 million, the defence argues that the prosecution’s own evidence does not support the assertion that the amount was dissipated for the accused persons’ private benefit. The submission points out that the prosecution’s tracing evidence included the US$1.75 million actually remitted to ISC Holdings, as well as other transactions which the defence says were wrongly characterised as dissipation.
The alleged connection between the GH¢49.1 million and properties, vehicles and investments is also challenged. According to the submission, PW4 acknowledged that ownership documentation for some of the properties was not before the court, that investigations were still ongoing, and that he could not connect the alleged houses, frozen vehicles, other investments, fertilizer business or any other business to the GH¢49.1 million.
Perhaps one of the most consequential documentary issues raised by the defence concerns the bank records relied upon for the prosecution’s tracing exercise. The submission points to missing portions of the documentary record, including 88 pages and another 193 pages of Advantage Solutions’ bank statement and the 207 pages of Adu-Boahene’s account which, according to the defence, should have formed part of the relevant exhibit. The defence argues that these omissions materially affect the prosecution’s ability to present a complete and reliable tracing of the funds.
The defence’s overarching argument is that the prosecution cannot fill these evidential gaps by calling upon the accused persons to explain matters which the Republic itself was required to establish. Its case is that the evidence, taken cumulatively, fails to establish the essential ingredients of the offences to the required threshold and therefore does not justify calling upon the accused to open their defence.
The application now places the prosecution’s evidence squarely before the court for determination of whether the Republic has established a prima facie case sufficient to require a defence.
The Attorney-General has 14 days to respond to the submission, after which the court will afford the defence 7 days to reply and before determining whether the accused persons have a case to answer.
