Lead counsel for former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene, Samuel Atta Akyea, has filed a submission of no case to answer, arguing that the prosecution has failed to present sufficient evidence requiring his clients to open their defence.
The submission was filed after the prosecution closed its case in the trial involving Mr Adu-Boahene, his wife Angela Adjei-Boateng and another accused person over alleged financial misconduct involving GH¢49.1 million.
The defence was directed to file its submission by Friday, September 25, following the prosecution’s calling of four witnesses during the trial.
The Attorney-General has 14 days to respond to the defence’s submission after being served.
Mr Akyea’s submission argues that significant evidential gaps, inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence and the absence of key witnesses undermine the State’s case.
A central issue raised by the defence concerns the prosecution’s account of the GH¢49.1 million allegedly earmarked for the procurement of a cybersecurity system.
The State alleges that the funds were transferred through three cheques from an account associated with National Security operations into an account belonging to BNC Communications Bureau Limited, a company linked to Mr Adu-Boahene and his wife.
According to the prosecution, the funds were subsequently dissipated and used for purposes unrelated to the intended procurement.
During the cross-examination of the prosecution’s final witness, EOCO investigator Frank Marshall Cromwell, Mr Akyea challenged aspects of the investigation and the conclusions drawn from the financial records.
One of the key issues was the nature and control of the account from which the GH¢49.1 million was transferred.
Evidence before the court indicated that the account had a signing mandate involving the National Security Coordinator and Mr Adu-Boahene, among others.
The three cheques at the centre of the prosecution’s case were also said to bear the signatures of the National Security Coordinator and Mr Adu-Boahene.
The defence relied on that evidence to challenge any suggestion that Mr Adu-Boahene had unilateral control over the funds.
Mr Akyea also questioned the prosecution’s evidence concerning the alleged cybersecurity procurement.
The State alleges that the GH¢49.1 million was intended to procure a cybersecurity system from Israeli company ISC Holdings, but that the system was never delivered.
During cross-examination, however, the EOCO investigator acknowledged that the agency did not independently engage ISC Holdings to establish whether the system had been purchased and delivered.
He also confirmed that EOCO did not engage the National Security Council to independently verify whether the system had been procured and delivered.
The investigator had earlier rejected a document presented as evidence of the alleged cybersecurity procurement, describing it as lacking authenticity and containing inconsistencies in the company name and other details.
The defence has relied on those issues to challenge the completeness of the investigation and the basis for the prosecution’s conclusions.
Mr Akyea has also questioned the absence of key officials who, according to the defence, could have provided evidence about the National Security arrangements surrounding the funds.
Among those identified during the proceedings were former National Security Minister Albert Kan-Dapaah and the then National Security Coordinator.
The defence argues that officials directly involved in the management and authorisation of the relevant National Security accounts could have provided important context for the transactions in dispute.
It has also challenged the prosecution’s attempts to directly link specific properties and other assets to the disputed GH¢49.1 million, pointing to instances where the EOCO investigator was unable to directly trace particular transactions to the funds in question.
The State maintains that it has presented sufficient evidence to establish that the GH¢49.1 million was public money intended for a cybersecurity project and that the funds were diverted into a private company account.
The prosecution has relied on bank statements, financial records, purchase receipts and ownership documents in seeking to demonstrate how the money was allegedly moved and spent.
It also alleges that GH¢9.54 million was transferred to ISC Holdings, but that no further payments were made towards the cybersecurity project. The remaining funds, according to the prosecution, were subsequently withdrawn or transferred and allegedly used for personal purposes.
The accused persons have pleaded not guilty to the charges, which include stealing, conspiracy to steal, defrauding by false pretences, wilfully causing financial loss to the state, using public office for profit and money laundering.