Admissions emerging from proceedings at the Accra High Court have drawn attention to the testimony of Madam Edith Ruby Opokua Adumuah, Director of Finance at the National Signals Bureau (NSB) and a prosecution witness for the Attorney-General, in the ongoing trial involving former NSB Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene and two others.
Her evidence, given under cross-examination, raises serious contradictions to the Attorney-General’s Statement of Facts accompanying the charge sheet, largely reproduced from the Attorney-General’s press conference on the matter, which he addressed on 24th March 2025.
During the said 24th March press conference, the Attorney-General, Dominic Akuritinga Ayine, outlined the prosecution’s case, alleging that while serving as Director of a public institution called the Bureau of National Communications (BNC) in 2020, Adu-Boahene, wielding the power to authorise spending of the funds of the BNC, moved GHC49.1 million from an account he referred to as the State BNC account into a private account of a company incorporated between himself and his wife, under the guise of purchasing a $7million cyber defence system, which he further averred was not fully paid for, nor delivered.
Dr. Ayine further alleged that EOCO’s investigation showed that the couple had, rather, used the funds to purchase several properties in Oyarifa, Mayfair, Kumasi, and London.
In court, however, the testimony of Madam Edith Ruby Opokua Adumuah has been examined alongside these claims, with defence counsel probing issues relating to the BNC institution, its financial transactions, documentation, and procurement processes. The matters raised remain before the court for determination. Against this backdrop, one of the central issues explored during the proceedings concerns the reported GH¢49.1 million and its connection to a $7 million acquisition.
No Knowledge or Record of stolen GH¢49.1 million
Among the issues raised during proceedings was the relationship between the GH¢49.1 million in special operations funds and a reported $7 million acquisition. Testifying under cross-examination by lead defence counsel Samuel Atta Akyea at Criminal Court 3 on Wednesday, 18 March 2026, Madam Edith Ruby Opokua Adumuah told the Accra High Court that she had no knowledge of any alleged theft of GH¢49.1 million within the national security apparatus.
She stated under oath that she neither detected nor reported any such financial irregularity during her tenure. She further told the court that no formal complaint, management query, or adverse audit finding had been raised regarding the alleged missing funds, adding that it would have been her responsibility to flag any such discrepancy, if it had indeed occurred.
“I am not aware of any theft of GH¢49.1 million, and I have not reported any such matter to my superiors or the Attorney-General, EOCO, the Auditor-General, or the Police,” she told the court.
The witness also indicated that she could not provide further clarification on the specific purpose of the GH¢49.1 million referenced in proceedings, citing the funds as the National Security Coordinator’s special operations funds, which the coordinator utilized at his operational discretion.
She added that there was no record of any GH¢49.1 million being missing or stolen from the books of the NSB or the BNC framework, noting that, as Director of Finance, she would have been in a position to identify and flag any such anomaly if it had occurred.
GHC49.1m Special Ops Funds signed by NS Coordinator, not Adu-Boahene
At the Accra High Court (Criminal Court 3) on Wednesday, 11 March 2026, prosecution witness, Edith Ruby Opokua Adumuah, admitted under cross-examination that three cheques totaling GHC49.1 million, issued at different dates in the year 2020 for Special Operations were authorised and signed by the late National Security Coordinator, Joshua Kyeremeh, and not former NSB Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene, contrary to the AG’s assertions.
Responding to questions from defence counsel Samuel Atta Akyea, the witness confirmed that all three cheques (GHC27.1 million, GHC1 million and GHC21 million) bore the coordinator’s signature and were drawn from the “Coordinator’s Account-NSC” at Fidelity Bank. She further affirmed that the funds were indeed for Special Operations.
Madam Adumuah also acknowledged that the National Security Coordinator held higher authority within the security structure and directly authorised the transactions. Additionally, she stated that such cheque transactions were typically processed without the need for supporting documentation due to their operational nature.
EOCO’s Position on the GH¢49.1 million and Exchange Rate Conversion
Contrary to the AG’s accompanying facts and press conference, where he asserted as fact that in 2020, the US Dollar equivalent of GH¢49.1 was $7 million at the time of payment, he was also exposed and contradicted by the witness.
During the proceedings of 11th December 2025, the witness categorically showed, via calculations using the then-prevailing exchange rates, that at no point in 2020 or 2021 was $7 million close to GHS 49.1 million, because the exchange rates were between a low of 5.27 and a high of 5.85.
The witness further told the court that, to her knowledge, the documents presented by the Economic and Organized Crime Office (EOCO) did not include budgetary or invoice documentation relating to the GH¢49.1 million referenced in connection with the acquisition of a cyber defence system.
Madam Edith Ruby Opokua Adumuah told the court that she was responsible for preparing the Bureau’s budgets. Under cross-examination at Criminal Court 3 on Tuesday, 24 March 2026, Madam Adumuah indicated that she had not prepared nor come across any budget of $7million, or GH¢49.1 million, nor even a budget for a Cyber Defence System.
When it was put to her by counsel that the only documents EOCO investigators had shown her pertaining to the GH¢49.1 million were photocopies of three cheques and corresponding deposits into a BNC Operations account with UMB Bank, she responded: “No, my Lord. I was also shown an invoice with an invoice number that was different from what we had in our records.”
When further asked whether she had seen an invoice covering the GH¢49.1 million transaction, she replied: “No, my Lord.” She also stated that she was not aware of any documentation linking the release of the GH¢49.1 million funds to the cyber defence system in question.
The witness added that the GH¢49.1 million exceeded the total BNC budget for 2020 and stated that she did not know the source of the funds or its purpose, noting that her clearance level did not permit her to confirm certain financial details. She also said she could not provide any narration or financial statement regarding the amount.
No State Agency called BNC, No Private BNC
The AG, in his press conference and accompanying facts in court, alleges that Kwabena Adu Boahene moved monies from a state BNC into a private BNC for personal use.
According to the witness during the proceedings of 7th November, 2025 at the Accra High Court, General Jurisdiction 10, she informed the court that the alleged public institution the AG referred to as the State BNC was not an agency, but rather an internal department in the Office of the National Security Coordinator (National Security Council Secretariat) which she likened to internal departments such as Administration and Finance in the same office.
She further educated the court that the account which the AG referred to as the State BNC account is actually called “Coordinator’s Account – NSC”, which was opened, owned, and controlled by the National Security Coordinator.
The witness added that Adu Boahene could not have unilaterally moved funds from the National Security Coordinator’s account because he did not wield that authority, and that all payments from the “Coordinator’s Account-NSC” (which the AG refers to as State BNC erroneously) were duly authorized by the National Security Coordinator himself.
On matters of special operations accounts, the witness informed the court that the National Security Coordinator has the power to open special-purpose accounts and designate who serves as a signatory to those accounts.
She further indicated that the National Security Coordinator operates special operations accounts at private banks for operational purposes and determines who serves as a signatory to the accounts. She told the court that these accounts, including “coordinator’s Account-NSC ” in Fidelity Bank, even though held in commercial banks, were not used for private purposes.
The witness further stated to the court that the account she knew at the UMB, into which she performed cheque transactions, was called the BNC Operations account, and that it was rather EOCO that sought to indicate otherwise that the account was a private account, when she went into EOCO.
During proceedings on Tuesday, 21 April 2026, the witness confirmed that she personally transacted on the said BNC OPERATIONS account, depositing at least two (2) cheques.
She, along with several other national security operatives, including Kwasi Nkansah, Osei Tutu (Deputy Director, NSB), and Denise, made withdrawals from the account for special operational purposes.
Atta Akyea categorically put it to the witness that the said Account, which EOCO referred to as Private BNC (BNC Communications Bureau Limited) at the UMB Bank, was the same account she and her colleagues transacted on as BNC Operations, a statement to which the Deputy AG objected.
The court, however, indicated that the account number would settle the matter of whether the two accounts are the same, and that some accounts do have aliases.
A simple check from the court records, however, reveals that the two accounts have the same account number.
Cash movements and operational procedures
The witness also testified that special operations cash movements, including those carried in “GhanaMustGo” bags, were conducted in accordance with National Security procedures.
Under cross-examination by Samuel Atta Akyea at the High Court (General Jurisdiction 10) on Wednesday, 10 December 2025, Madam Adumuah stated that the cash movements and cheque preparations attributed to the first accused were consistent with the operational framework of the National Security Council Secretariat, and that they were routine practices. She added that, monies arriving in Ghana must go bags does not mean the monies have been stolen or diverted.
Cyber defence payments
Madam Adumuah further told the court that payments relating to the cyber defence system were genuine transactions, and were processed by herself based on established procedures.
Testifying under cross-examination at Criminal Court 3 on 20 April 2026, she stated that the procurement and payment for the system constituted what she described as a “special operations” transaction. She indicated that she processed payments based on invoices submitted for the transaction.
In the course of proceedings, counsel for the defence referred her to invoices relating to an amount of $1.75 million and questioned whether there were duplicate invoices for that same amount representing a 25 percent payment for a Cyber Defence System. The witness responded that there was no duplicate invoice and stated that the referenced document corresponded with an exhibit before the court.
The witness indicated to the court that the payment of the cyber defence system was contingent upon delivery. She emphasized that, per the invoice, payment was only due upon delivery.
Lawyer Samuel Atta Akyea questioned her knowledge of the actual delivery of the cyber defence system. The witness responded that, because the purchase was classified as special operations and not a regular procurement process, she did not have the clearance to speak to the delivery of the system, and that it is only ISC holdings (the vendor) and the top hierarchy of the National security (the purchaser) that would know.
This suggests that EOCO and the AG would not know the details of the acquisition because they do not have the clearance to do so.
Correspondence available from ISC Holdings of Israel, however, suggests that the equipment was indeed acquired and delivered.
Pre-financing and Reimbursement of Special Operations Expenditure
Madam Edith Ruby Opokua Adumuah informed the court that delays in budgetary releases from the government affected National Security operations, including instances where the first budgetary releases for the financial year do not occur until as late as April.
She told the court that the time-sensitive nature of National security operations required both herself and her boss, Adu-Boahene, to prefinance urgent operational expenditure, which required refunds. The witness also stated that, at a point, National Security faced financial constraints, and arrangements were made to pre-finance certain suppliers.
Under cross-examination, she told the court that at one point, the institution had a bank balance of only GH¢11,000, and that Adu-Boahene had to arrange pre-financed funds to meet payment obligations to Ability Computers and Software Industries Limited of Israel.
She also admitted to several instances where she had to “beg” her former boss, Adu Boahene, for money for other time-sensitive operations. When quizzed on whether all the pre-financing arrangements by Adu-Boahene had been reimbursed, she responded that she did not know.
Confidentiality in operations
Madam Adumuah also told the court that National Security operations were conducted under strict confidentiality, noting that it was not standard practice to disclose the identities of agents, assets, or sources.
When asked about her knowledge of a company called Izar Limited, she responded that Izar was a registered supplier to her institution that had provided services to National Security, and that those services were paid for, in line with established procedures.
On 27th April, 2026, defence counsel led by Samuel Atta Akyea, Esq. successfully concluded a rigorous five (5)- month cross-examination of Madam Ruby Edith Adumuah, Director of Finance of National Signals Bureau, and the second prosecution witness of the Attorney-General.
In a striking development, the Prosecution indicated its intention to call Madam Mildred Donkor as the third prosecution witness. Notably, Madam Donkor was previously arrested, bailed, and charged as the 3rd Accused in connection with this matter, but has since been called to testify for the Prosecution.
