On 19 October 2026, counsel Samuel Atta Akyea filed an application at the High Court requesting that the court strike out sections of the Deputy Attorney‑General’s submissions that, according to the defence, misrepresent witness testimony and documentary evidence presented during the trial of former National Signals Bureau Director‑General Kwabena Adu‑Boahene. The application alleges that the prosecution has invented statements and attributed them to witnesses, and that it has presented fabricated documents as evidence.
The defence argues that the prosecution’s submissions contain assertions that are not borne out by the record of proceedings. It contends that the prosecution has attributed to witnesses statements they did not make, and that it has presented documentary evidence that was never proved in court. The application focuses on several key issues, including the alleged forgery of Exhibits X and 11, the mischaracterisation of witness testimony regarding the authenticity of those exhibits, and the prosecution’s reliance on testimony from PW2 and PW4 to suggest that the NSB had no contract with ISC Holdings Limited for a cyber‑defence system.
According to the defence, PW2 was discharged on 27 April 2026, while Exhibit X was admitted through PW4 on 22 June 2026, making it impossible for PW2 to have testified about the exhibit. The defence also disputes the prosecution’s claim that PW2 testified the NSB did not know BNC Communications Bureau Limited or its bank account, arguing that the witness’s testimony was based on an assumption that the account was operational.
The application further challenges the prosecution’s treatment of GH¢49.1 million allegedly linked to the cyber‑defence system transaction, arguing that PW3 did not testify that the entire amount was spent on the accused persons and their associates. The defence maintains that PW3’s testimony does not support the prosecution’s characterisation of the witness’s evidence.
Another contested issue concerns Exhibit H, which the prosecution used to suggest payments were made from a company’s bank account to Adu‑Boahene’s mother for a building project in Kumasi. The defence argues that Exhibit H is merely a photograph of a building and does not constitute a bank statement or contain accounting annotations, and cites testimony from PW4 that there were no direct payments from the accounts analysed towards the Kumasi project.
In its affidavit, the defence stresses that where facts have not been received in evidence, a party cannot rely on them in submissions for the court’s consideration. It argues that introducing material not established through evidence amounts to giving evidence from the bar, which is impermissible under the rules of evidence and the applicable rules governing court proceedings.
The lawyers are asking the court to either strike out the specific portions of the prosecution’s submissions identified in the application or, alternatively, to direct that those passages be disregarded when determining whether the accused persons have a case to answer. The application arises from the ongoing criminal trial in which the prosecution closed its case on 8 September 2026. The accused persons subsequently filed their submission of no case to answer on 25 September 2026, and the prosecution filed its opposition on 9 October 2026.
What comes next is the court’s decision on whether to accept the defence’s request to exclude the contested submissions and how this will affect the court’s assessment of whether the accused persons have a case to answer.
