Adu-Boahene loses bid to remove parts of prosecution’s no-case arguments

The Accra High Court has dismissed an application by former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene, his wife Angela Adjei Boateng and a third accused to have parts of the prosecution’s written arguments struck out.

Justice Francis Apangabuno Achibonga, who presided, gave the ruling on Thursday, October 29, 2026, in the case titled Republic v Adu-Boahene & 2 Others. The court said it is not its job to check whether counsel’s written submissions match the evidence led at trial, or to expunge arguments because they allegedly rely on evidence that does not exist.

The accused are on trial over the alleged diversion of GH¢49.1 million meant for a US$7 million cyber-defence system for the state. They have pleaded not guilty.

Defence lawyer Samuel Atta Akyea asked the court to remove sections of the prosecution’s submissions, filed on October 9, 2026, opposing the accused’s submission of no case to answer. He said the sections were not backed by the record of proceedings.

The prosecution, he argued, had attributed statements to witnesses who never made them, and had described the contents of an exhibit in a way that broke the rules of court, evidence and professional ethics.

Mr Akyea warned that leaving the disputed portions unchallenged could mislead the court and lead to a miscarriage of justice, since the accused persons’ liberty is at stake. Counsel may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence on record, he said, but that is a different thing from “submissions which are based on non-existent evidence.”

He cited earlier Supreme Court decisions, including Francis Asuming and 640 Others v Divestiture Implementation Committee and Republic v Court of Appeal; Ex parte Tsatsu Tsikata, as well as the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules, 2020 (L.I. 2423).

The Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, opposed the application for the prosecution. He argued that it did not rely on any jurisdiction the court recognises, and that no affidavit in opposition was needed because the evidence was already before the court.

The court can review the record itself, and decide whether the prosecution’s arguments are supported, without striking anything out, he said.

Dr Srem-Sai said the court has no general power to expunge parts of a lawyer’s written address just because the other side disputes its accuracy. Pleadings and affidavits can be struck out under procedural rules in some circumstances, he said, but written addresses are not the same.

He added that the accused had already raised the alleged misrepresentation in their reply to the prosecution’s submissions, filed on October 19, 2026, and he called the application an attempt to delay the proceedings.

In its ruling, the court said a written address is a document counsel file to help or persuade a judge on the law and the facts. It cannot replace evidence on the record. Where counsel relies on evidence that does not exist, that reliance carries no probative value.

Even if counsel misstates the evidence, the judge still has to assess what was actually led.

The court said the defence had a remedy. Counsel who believes an opponent has relied on non-existent evidence should point it out to the court, as the defence did in its reply, rather than ask the court to run a separate inquiry into the accuracy of the opponent’s address.

Whether or not such an issue is raised, the court said, it must decide only on testimony and exhibits properly admitted at trial. It declined to go into the merits of the application and dismissed it.

The court will rule on the substantive submission of no case to answer on November 5, 2026. That ruling will decide whether the prosecution has presented enough evidence to require the accused to open their defence.