Adu-Boahene Trial: Judge Schedules Hearing on Alleged Misstatements in Prosecution’s Case

By Boakye Stephen, Kumasi, Ghana | Reporting for Ghanaian News Canada

The motion was filed on October 19 by Mr Adu-Boahene, Angela Adjei Boateng and Advantage Solutions Limited through their lawyer, Samuel Atta Akyea.

The application was adjourned after proceedings on Monday, October 26. The judge reportedly said the case docket was at his residence and that he had only become aware of the motion that morning.

The Attorney-General’s Office, which was reportedly served with the application on October 19, had not filed a formal response by Monday’s hearing.

Thursday’s proceedings will take place before the court’s scheduled November 5 ruling on whether the accused persons have a case to answer.

The motion is separate from a reply the accused persons have filed challenging the prosecution’s legal arguments against their submission of no case to answer. While the reply addresses the legal basis for requiring the accused to open their defence, the motion seeks the removal of specific passages alleged to misrepresent testimony and documentary evidence.

Six areas of dispute

In a supporting affidavit, Mr Adu-Boahene identifies six categories of statements that the applicants say are inconsistent with the trial record.

One dispute concerns the prosecution’s characterisation of testimony about a purchase agreement and an invoice connected to a cyber-defence system. The applicants argue that the witnesses did not testify that the purchase agreement, admitted as Exhibit X, was not genuine.

Regarding disputed invoices, the affidavit cites a witness as saying that one document was “likely” to contain an error, while also explaining that she could not determine which invoice was incorrect. The applicants contend that this testimony does not establish that the documents were forged or fabricated.

A second complaint concerns the prosecution’s claim that a witness said the National Signals Bureau had no contract with ISC Holdings Limited for the cyber-defence system. The applicants maintain that the witness gave no such evidence and instead acknowledged processing and paying an invoice relating to delivery and acceptance milestones.

The motion also challenges how the prosecution interpreted the witness’s knowledge of an operations account. The applicants say she explained that her security clearance did not permit her to know about certain national security accounts and activities. They argue that this limitation cannot establish that the institution itself was unaware of the company or account.

Another disputed passage concerns a March 2020 invoice described by the prosecution as covering a one-time purchase. The applicants say the witness acknowledged that the amount discussed was not the full payment and that another invoice relating to the same acquisition had been processed.

The fifth issue concerns the prosecution’s assertion that the entire GH¢49.1 million was spent on the accused persons and their relatives, friends or associates, with none used for an official or approved purpose.

The applicants argue that the third prosecution witness did not give the testimony attributed to her. They point instead to exhibits identifying ISC International Security Consultants Holdings Limited as a beneficiary and referring to procurement of a cyber-defence system.

The final complaint relates to Exhibit H, a photograph of a building allegedly associated with a project in Kumasi. The applicants argue that the photograph contains no banking or accounting information proving that payments were made from Advantage Solutions Limited’s account to Mr Adu-Boahene’s mother for the building project.

They also cite testimony from a fourth prosecution witness who reportedly acknowledged that there were no direct payments from the analysed accounts towards Dorchester Heights, the building identified in the dispute.

Prosecution maintains its case is supported by evidence

The applicants contend that presenting claims unsupported by testimony or documents in written submissions amounts to introducing evidence from the bar. They are asking the court to strike out the challenged passages.

In its October 9 submissions, the prosecution, represented by Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai, argued that sufficient evidence had been presented to establish the essential elements of the offences. It urged the court to dismiss the submission of no case to answer, maintaining that its documentary evidence had not been undermined during cross-examination.

Those submissions were filed before the applicants’ motion and do not directly address the specific allegations raised in it.

The prosecution’s failure to file a formal response by Monday does not, in itself, prove the applicants’ claims. The court is expected to hear the motion on Thursday before delivering its November 5 ruling on whether the accused persons must open their defence.

COMMENTARY

The dispute highlights why accurate presentation of evidence is fundamental to criminal proceedings. Prosecutors must base their arguments on the trial record, while defence lawyers are entitled to challenge interpretations they consider inaccurate. The court’s task is to assess the disputed passages objectively without treating the motion itself as proof of misconduct. The November 5 ruling will be an important procedural milestone, but it should not be confused with a final determination of guilt or innocence.