Lawyers for former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene have filed an application at the High Court seeking to strike out portions of the prosecution’s submissions opposing the accused persons’ submission of no case to answer, alleging that the disputed passages misrepresent witness testimony and documentary evidence presented during the trial.
The accused persons also state in their affidavit in support of the motion that, the prosecution invented statements and attributed same to witnesses. They further posit that, the prosecution fabricated statements and paragraphs which does not exist in the entire records of proceedings before the court.
The application, filed on October 19, 2026, by counsel Samuel Atta Akyea, argues that several assertions in the Deputy Attorney-General’s submissions, filed on October 9, 2026, are not borne out by the record of proceedings.
The defence contends that the prosecution has attributed statements to witnesses that they did not make and presented certain documentary evidence as establishing facts that, according to the application, were never proved in court and therefore do not form part of the records.
At the centre of the application is the defence’s argument that submissions of counsel must be grounded in evidence properly before the court and that neither the prosecution nor the defence can invent new evidence or fabricate statements through written legal arguments.
One of the principal issues raised concerns Exhibits X and 11, which the prosecution allegedly characterised as forged or fabricated documents.
According to the application, the prosecution attributed to prosecution witnesses PW2 and PW4 testimony that the exhibits were not genuine. The defence disputes this characterisation, arguing that neither witness testified that the documents were forged.
The application further points out that PW2 had been discharged on April 27, 2026, whereas Exhibit X was admitted in evidence through PW4 on June 22, 2026. On that basis, the defence argues that PW2 could not have testified about the exhibit during her testimony.
The defence also challenges the prosecution’s alleged reliance on PW2’s testimony to suggest that the NSB had no contract with ISC Holdings Limited for the cyber-defence system. It maintains that the witness acknowledged the processing and payment of an invoice relating to the system, including delivery and acceptance milestones.
The lawyers similarly dispute the prosecution’s alleged assertion that PW2 testified that the NSB did not know BNC Communications Bureau Limited or its bank account. The application states that the witness’s testimony concerning the account was based on her assumption that it was an operational account.
The application also takes issue with the prosecution’s treatment of GH¢49.1 million allegedly linked to the cyber-defence system transaction.
The defence disputes the prosecution’s alleged assertion that PW3 testified that the entire amount was spent on the accused persons, their friends, associates and family members rather than on an official or approved purpose.
According to the application, PW3 identified ISC International Security Consultants Holdings Limited as the beneficiary of Exhibits 19 and 20 and read the remittance information as relating to the procurement of a cyber-defence system under invoice NSC006.
The defence argues that this testimony does not support the prosecution’s characterisation of the witness’s evidence.
Another contested issue concerns Exhibit H, which the prosecution allegedly relied on to suggest that 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 establishing the alleged payments. It further cites testimony attributed to PW4 acknowledging that there were no direct payments from the accounts analysed towards Dorchester Heights, the property identified in the proceedings as the Kumasi project.
In the supporting affidavit, Adu-Boahene argues that where facts have not been received in evidence, a party cannot properly rely on them in submissions for the court’s consideration.
The application further contends that introducing material not established through evidence amounts to giving evidence from the bar, which the defence maintains is impermissible under the rules of evidence and the applicable rules governing court proceedings.
The lawyers are therefore asking the court to strike out the specific portions of the prosecution’s submissions identified in the application. Alternatively, they want the court 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 September 8, 2026. The accused persons subsequently filed their submission of no case to answer on September 25, 2026, and the prosecution filed its opposition on October 9, 2026.
A submission of no case to answer invites the court to determine whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to require the accused persons to enter a defence.
