Adu-Boahene trial: Atta Akyea reacts to forgery allegations

Lead counsel for former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene, Samuel Atta Akyea, has challenged aspects of the prosecution’s evidence in the ongoing GH¢49.1 million case, including allegations surrounding allegedly forged documents.

The development came as the prosecution brought its case to a close after calling four witnesses, with EOCO investigator Frank Marshall Cromwell serving as the final prosecution witness.

Atta Akyea puts prosecution evidence under the microscope

During his extensive cross-examination of Cromwell, Atta Akyea questioned the integrity and basis of the investigation conducted by the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO).

Cromwell, however, maintained that the investigation was based on verified evidence and relevant documents and rejected suggestions that investigators deliberately ignored evidence favourable to the accused.

The defence lawyer’s approach has been to test the prosecution’s documentary evidence, financial calculations and investigative conclusions rather than simply accept the narrative presented by the state.

Forgery allegations come under scrutiny

The forgery issue forms part of the wider dispute over documents relied upon by the prosecution to establish its case.

The state has alleged irregularities involving documents connected to the purported procurement of cybersecurity equipment. The defence has challenged the prosecution’s interpretation and evidentiary basis on several fronts.

Cromwell told the court that EOCO’s investigation began following a tip-off alleging that GH¢49.1 million had been transferred from a National Security account to BNC Communications Bureau Limited at UMB Bank. Investigators subsequently obtained records from financial institutions as part of their inquiries.

Defence challenges the GH¢49.1m figure

Atta Akyea has also attacked the prosecution’s calculation of the amount involved.

In July, he challenged the state’s claim that the transaction amounted to GH¢49.1 million, arguing that the cedi equivalent of the US$7 million transaction should have been approximately GH¢38.15 million based on the exchange rate at the material time.

The disagreement over the figure is significant because the GH¢49.1 million amount has featured prominently in the charges and the prosecution’s presentation of the alleged financial diversion.

‘My focus was the investigations’

During cross-examination, Atta Akyea also questioned Cromwell about information and public comments surrounding the investigation.

The EOCO investigator made it clear that his role was focused on the investigation itself and not statements allegedly made outside the investigative process.

“My focus was the investigations and nothing else,” Cromwell told the court.

The exchange highlights the defence’s attempt to separate the evidence gathered by investigators from statements or narratives that may have emerged publicly during the case.

Four witnesses, prosecution closes its case

The Republic has now closed its case after calling four witnesses.

Cromwell, who spent several weeks in the witness box, faced prolonged cross-examination from Atta Akyea before the court eventually brought that phase to an end. The court had earlier given the defence additional time to conclude its questioning.

With the prosecution’s witnesses discharged, the focus has now shifted to whether the state has presented sufficient evidence to require the accused persons to mount a defence.

Atta Akyea now prepares for no-case submission

Following the closure of the prosecution’s case, the High Court has given the defence until September 25, 2026, to file its submission of no case to answer.

But Atta Akyea has already raised concerns about the timeline, arguing that 14 days is too short to properly study the prosecution’s extensive evidence and prepare what he considers a credible submission.

The next big battle

The prosecution believes its four witnesses and documentary evidence have established a case concerning the alleged diversion of GH¢49.1 million.

The defence, meanwhile, has spent months attacking the state’s evidence, questioning the amount involved, the investigative process and the reliability of documents relied upon by the prosecution.