The decision by the former Director-General of the erstwhile National Signals Bureau (NSB), Kwabena Adu-Boahene, to request for the disclosure of all National Security Coordinators’ special operational accounts, spanning 33 years and five Presidents – from 1992 to date, drew a spirited argument between his lawyer and the Deputy Attorney General yesterday.
While the Deputy Attorney General, Dr. Srem-Sai, is asking the court to deny the request because it is not relevant to the charges for which the accused and three others are standing trial, his lawyer, Samuel Atta Akyea strongly argues that those documents establish a particular pattern and is very crucial to any defence the accused would mount.
Even before the application was moved, the trial judge, Justice Eugene Nyante Nyadu indicated he did not know the intent for the request, considering the fact that they bother on national security matters, and even suggested he may have to stay proceedings and refer the matter to the Supreme Court for a determination as to whether or not the materials should be disclosed.
Nonetheless, the court has adjourned the case to July 3, 2025 to rule on whether or not to order the Attorney General to disclose the documents as one of the exculpatory evidence that could help the accused persons exonerate themselves of the charges levelled against them.
Charges
Mr. Adu-Boahene and his wife, Angela Adjei-Boateng have been charged for allegedly stealing a total of GH¢49.1 million from the state.
The two, as well as Mildred Donkor and Advantage Solutions Limited, are facing a total of 11 counts of conspiracy to commit crime, stealing, using public office for profit, money laundering and causing financial loss to the state.
They have all denied any wrongdoing in the ongoing trial, which has attracted both national and international attention.
Disclosures
The Office of the Attorney General has so far filed a total of 85 separate documentations in a bid to secure a conviction against the accused persons.
But even before the prosecution calls its first witness, Mr. Adu-Boahene has made a bold move at solidifying his defence by requesting the Attorney General to furnish him with all the operational accounts of National Security Coordinators.
The accounts he is seeking access to include the presidencies of Jerry John Rawlings’s (1992 to 2001), John Agyekum Kufuor (2001 to 2009), John Evans Atta Mills (2009 to 2012), John Mahama (2012 to 2013; 2013 to 2017; and current tenure) as well as Akufo-Addo (2017 to 2025).
Motion
Moving the application yesterday, Mr. Atta Akyea argued that the Attorney General as part of their disclosures has already filed certain materials relating to the National Security Coordinator’s accounts, meaning the prosecution is comfortable to divulge National Security matters to advance the prosecution of this case.
He averred that disclosures at the behest of the prosecution must of necessity, include all that is exculpatory of the accused persons and not the pleasure of the Attorney General “to decide which of the disclosures are palatable to him and those which are not.”
Mr. Atta Akyea also insisted that the Attorney General must disclose the full complement of the bank account of the accused company.
Opposition
The application was vehemently opposed by Dr. Srem-Sai, who argued that the law remains clear that evidence must be relevant, pointing out that Sedition 51 of the Evidence Act has made it very emphatic that no evidence is admissible except relevant evidence.
He further argued that the practice direction which regulates disclosures made it clear that evidence which will warrant disclosure must satisfy two conditions: that the evidence is relevant and that it must be evidence which is in the exclusive possession of the prosecution.
“A request for further disclosure must pass the test of relevance. We have backed this position with the Practice Direction of 2018, particularly paragraph 2(1E) and section 51 of the Evidence Act. Based on this contention, we have submitted that neither the affidavit in support of the motion nor the submission made in court have proven or even attempted to prove that any of the items being requested is relevant to proving or disproving the allegations in this trial,” Dr. Srem-Sai added.
Source: Dailyguidenetwork
