Lead counsel for Kwabena Adu‑Boahene, Angela Adjei Boateng and Advantage Solutions Ltd., Samuel Atta Akyea, filed a comprehensive no‑case submission with the High Court today, demanding the accused be acquitted on the grounds that the prosecution has not proven a case that requires them to open a defence.
The submission, lodged after the prosecution closed its case, points to what the defence calls fundamental evidential gaps, material inconsistencies, unreliable evidence and the failure to call witnesses central to the prosecution’s own theory.
At the heart of the matter is the alleged GH¢49.1 million said 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 key challenge 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 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. The National Security Coordinator was required to approve any transaction, and the cheques bore his signature, according to prosecution witnesses.
The defence highlights that all three cheques were earmarked for special operations, yet no evidence establishes the specific purpose of the GH¢49.1 million. Prosecution witness PW2 repeatedly stated she did not know the purpose of the cheques, while lead investigator PW4 admitted no authorising document was found to show the intended use.
Another major point of attack is the prosecution’s failure to call or properly investigate material witnesses, notably the former National Security Coordinator, Joshua Kyeremeh, who signed the cheques, and Seth Kwadwo Danso, the Director of Finance at the Office of the National Security Coordinator.
The defence also contests the alleged non‑delivery of the cyber‑defence system, noting that investigators never contacted ISC Holdings Limited to confirm delivery, invoice authenticity or the status of the equipment. The submission further questions the treatment of Invoice NSC006, which investigators deemed questionable because a duplicate was found in National Signals Bureau records, yet no verification was sought with ISC Holdings.
Regarding the alleged financial loss and tracing of the GH¢49.1 million, the defence argues the prosecution’s evidence does not support the claim that the amount was dissipated for the accused’s private benefit. The prosecution’s tracing evidence included the US$1.75 million remitted to ISC Holdings, but the defence says other transactions were wrongly characterised as dissipation.
The defence also disputes the alleged link between the funds and properties, vehicles, and investments, noting that ownership documentation for some properties was not before the court and investigations were still ongoing.
A significant documentary issue raised by the defence concerns missing portions of the documentary record, including 88 pages and another 193 pages of Advantage Solutions’ bank statement and 207 pages of Adu‑Boahene’s account, which should have formed part of the relevant exhibit.
In summary, the defence argues that the prosecution cannot fill these evidential gaps by calling upon the accused to explain matters that the Republic itself was required to establish. The court will now determine whether the prosecution 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 before making a determination.
