A major legal victory has been secured for former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau (NSB) Mr Kwabena Adu Boahene, and his wife Angela Adjei Boateng as the Court of Appeal has ordered the Attorney-General (A-G) and Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) to disclose a broad range of documents and materials in court.
The defence had argued that these documents had been withheld and concealed in the ongoing criminal case in which they are accused of the alleged theft of GH¢49.1 million in public funds.
In a unanimous ruling delivered on May 28, 2026, and signed by Mrs Justice Georgina Mensah Datsa with Justice George Buadi concurring, the Court of Appeal allowed in substantial part an interlocutory appeal filed by Adu-Boahene and his spouse, directing the prosecution to release critical evidence and information considered necessary for a fair determination of the case.
The ruling arose from a challenge to an earlier decision of the High Court, presided over by Justice Eugene Nyante Nyadu, which refused several disclosure requests made by the defence in the case of Republic v Kwabena Adu Boahene and Others.
Dissatisfied with that decision, the accused persons proceeded to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the Attorney-General had failed to disclose material evidence relevant to their defence.
The appellants maintained that despite the seriousness of the allegations against them, the prosecution had withheld key documents, including banking records, National Security files and materials relating to the alleged acquisition and deployment of a cyber defence system that forms the centrepiece of the criminal case.
Consequential orders
In considering the appeal, the Appellate Court reaffirmed the principle that the prosecution bears a continuing obligation to disclose all relevant materials in its possession, control or obtainable through reasonable diligence.
The court stressed that the constitutional right to a fair trial requires that accused persons be given access to evidence necessary for the preparation of their defence.
It consequently ordered the Attorney-General to produce and disclose 88 missing pages of bank statements belonging to Advantage Solutions Company Limited after the defence complained that pages 2 to 89 had been omitted from records previously supplied by the prosecution.
The appellate court also directed the Attorney-General to disclose details concerning the source of the controversial GH¢49.1 million that lies at the heart of the prosecution’s case. According to the ruling, such information is necessary to determine whether the monies in question were public funds and whether the allegations advanced by the state can be properly sustained.
In another significant order, the court directed the Attorney General to disclose information regarding the purpose for which the funds were allegedly disbursed, including whether the monies were intended for the procurement and delivery of the cyber defence system referred to in the charges before the court.
The Court of Appeal further ordered the disclosure of files and records linked to the acquisition of the cyber defence system, including portions of a file allegedly compiled by former National Security Coordinator, the late Joshua Kyeremeh, provided such records exist and are relevant to the proceedings.
Additionally, the court directed the prosecution to disclose bank account records connected to Adu Boahene’s period of service within the National Security establishment.
However, the court limited the scope of disclosure to records dating from 2007 onwards rather than the broader period initially sought by the defence.
On requests relating to confirmation of the delivery of the cyber defence system and contracts involving ISC Holdings Limited, the court did not reject the applications outright. Rather, it advised the defence to reframe and particularise the requests before seeking the disclosures again.
Similarly, regarding the defence request to inspect the alleged cyber defence system and related facilities, the court held that the relief should be reformulated with greater specificity to facilitate consideration of the application.
While granting substantial reliefs to the appellants, the Court of Appeal declined to stay proceedings in the substantive criminal trial. The court held that disclosure in criminal proceedings is a continuing process and therefore did not warrant a suspension of the trial.
Reaction of Defence Counsel
Reacting to the ruling, lead defence counsel Mr Samuel Atta Akyea described the decision as a huge victory for Adu-Boahene and his wife, insisting that suggestions that the appeal had failed were completely misplaced.
According to him, the Court of Appeal had vindicated the defence’s long standing position that the Attorney-General was constitutionally obligated to disclose all relevant materials intended to be relied upon during the prosecution.
Mr Atta Akyea recalled that the Attorney General had publicly accused Adu-Boahene and his wife of allegedly misappropriating GH¢49.1 million earmarked for the procurement of a cyber defence system for the National Security Secretariat.
He argued that the disclosure orders granted by the Court of Appeal would now compel the prosecution to provide evidence capable of testing those allegations.
“These disclosures are the documents the Attorney General wants to rely on to prosecute the case so that you do not spring surprises on the defence. Some of the documents may even be exculpatory and consistent with the innocence of the accused persons,” he stated.
He explained that the disclosure requests were firmly rooted in Article 19 of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing and obliges prosecutors to provide accused persons with access to relevant evidence.
Mr Atta Akyea further noted that the Court of Appeal’s decision had opened the door for the defence to return with more specifically worded applications concerning other categories of evidence sought in the case.
According to him, the ruling ultimately reinforces transparency and fairness within the criminal justice process while ensuring that the accused persons are afforded every opportunity to adequately defend themselves against the charges.
“What they did was to uphold Article 19 of the Constitution. Justice has been done,” he said.
The Court of Appeal’s ruling means the Attorney General is now required to disclose the documents and information specified by the appellate court, while proceedings in the substantive criminal trial continue before the High Court.
By Kyei Boateng
