The Accra High Court has dismissed an application by former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene and two other accused persons seeking to remove portions of the prosecution’s written submissions in their ongoing GH¢49.1 million cyber-defence case.
The ruling was delivered on Thursday, October 29, 2026, by Justice Francis Apangabuno Achibonga, who explained that written legal arguments could not replace evidence presented during a trial.
The application was filed by defence counsel Samuel Atta Akyea, who asked the court to expunge sections of the prosecution’s submissions opposing the accused persons’ submission of no case to answer.
However, Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai opposed the application, arguing that the court should assess the disputed arguments against the evidence already on record rather than strike them out.
Adu-Boahene and Two Others Face GH¢49.1 Million Alleged Diversion Charges
Kwabena Adu-Boahene and two other individuals are standing trial over the alleged diversion of GH¢49.1 million intended for the procurement of a US$7 million cyber-defence system for the state.
The accused persons have pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The case has attracted attention because of the substantial amount of public funds involved and the intended use of the money for Ghana’s cyber-defence infrastructure.
As the trial progresses, the court is considering whether the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to require the accused persons to open their defence.
Defence Counsel Challenges Prosecution’s Written Submissions
During the proceedings, Samuel Atta Akyea argued that certain portions of the prosecution’s written submissions, filed on October 9, 2026, contained claims that were allegedly unsupported by the trial record.
He contended that the prosecution had attributed statements to witnesses on matters about which they had not testified. He also challenged assertions concerning an exhibit, arguing that they were inconsistent with the rules of evidence and professional ethics.
According to the defence lawyer, allowing the disputed statements to remain unchallenged could mislead the court when determining whether the accused persons had a case to answer.
Akyea maintained that legal arguments should be based on evidence properly presented during the proceedings and cautioned against relying on claims unsupported by the trial record.
He cited previous Supreme Court decisions, including Francis Asuming and 640 Others v Divestiture Implementation Committee and Republic v Court of Appeal; Ex parte Tsatsu Tsikata, in support of his arguments.
The defence also relied on the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules, 2020 (L.I. 2423), to support its application.
Deputy Attorney-General Opposes Application
Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai urged the court to dismiss the application, arguing that the defence had not established grounds for expunging portions of the prosecution’s written submissions.
He maintained that the court should evaluate the prosecution’s arguments alongside the evidence presented during the trial and determine the matter based on its merits.
Srem-Sai further pointed out that the accused persons had already challenged the alleged misrepresentation in their reply to the prosecution’s submissions, which was filed on October 19, 2026.
He therefore argued that there was no need for the court to remove the disputed portions of the prosecution’s written address.
High Court Explains the Role of Written Legal Submissions
In dismissing the application, Justice Francis Apangabuno Achibonga explained that written submissions are intended to assist a court by presenting arguments on the law and facts.
However, the judge stressed that such submissions cannot replace evidence given by witnesses or exhibits properly admitted during a trial.
The court further indicated that even if a lawyer misrepresented evidence in a written submission, the disputed statements would not acquire evidential value merely because they had been presented to the judge.
According to the ruling, counsel who believe that an opposing party has relied on evidence that was never presented can draw the court’s attention to the alleged inaccuracies.
The judge noted that the defence had already raised its concerns in its response to the prosecution’s submissions.
The court emphasised that its decision must be based on witness testimony and exhibits properly admitted into evidence to ensure a fair and just determination of the case.
Court to Rule on Adu-Boahene’s No-Case Submission on November 5
The Accra High Court is expected to deliver its ruling on the substantive submission of no case to answer on November 5, 2026.
The decision will determine whether the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence against Adu-Boahene and his two co-accused to require them to open their defence.
A submission of no case to answer is made when the defence argues that the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient to justify requiring an accused person to defend themselves.
If the court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish a case requiring an answer, it may enter a verdict of acquittal. If the submission is dismissed, the accused persons may be required to present their defence in accordance with the applicable legal procedure.
The forthcoming ruling is therefore an important stage in the GH¢49.1 million cyber-defence case, which centres on allegations concerning funds intended for a state security project.
The accused persons have pleaded not guilty, and the allegations remain subject to determination by the court.
Source: newsthemegh.com