Adu-Boahene trial: What we know after 18 months of prosecution’s case

After more than a year of hearings, the prosecution’s case against former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene has reached a critical stage, with prosecutors presenting financial records, bank transactions and testimony they say establish how GH¢49.1 million in state funds was allegedly diverted and spent.

The trial, which began on July 18, 2025, involves Adu-Boahene, his wife Angela Adjei-Boateng and other accused persons. The accused have denied the charges.

The GH¢49.1 million allegation

At the centre of the case is an alleged diversion of GH¢49.1 million from a government account.

The prosecution says the money belonged to the Government of Ghana and was held in a government agency’s bank account. Deputy Attorney-General Justice Edem Srem-Sai has maintained that there has been no dispute in court over the source of the funds.

According to the prosecution, three cheques intended for a government agency were allegedly deposited into the account of BNC Communications Limited, a private company.

Prosecutors further allege that a new bank account was opened in the name of a private company on the same day the first cheque was issued, with the company’s name allegedly designed to resemble that of a government agency.

How the money was allegedly spent

One of the prosecution’s major claims is that it has traced the movement of the funds after they were allegedly transferred.

Justice Srem-Sai said prosecutors presented bank statements, purchase receipts, ownership documents and other financial records which, according to the state, show how the money was spent over a six-month period.

The prosecution alleges that some of the funds were used to acquire houses in prime locations and luxury vehicles for Adu-Boahene, relatives and associates.

The ‘political campaign’ explanation

Another major point of contention has been the alleged explanation that the money was used to finance political activities ahead of the 2024 elections.

The prosecution has rejected that explanation, with the Deputy Attorney-General telling the public that evidence presented in court contradicts the claim.

The state also alleges that some of the accused initially denied ownership of companies, bank accounts and properties linked to the case but later acknowledged ownership after being confronted with evidence.

Cybersecurity equipment claim

The prosecution has also challenged the explanation that the money was intended for the acquisition of cybersecurity equipment.

According to Justice Srem-Sai, investigators found no evidence that the equipment was ever purchased.

The state further alleges that forged purchase receipts were subsequently created to conceal the fact that the equipment had not been procured. These remain prosecution allegations to be tested through the court process.

The bank account flagged as suspicious

The prosecution says the private account through which the transactions allegedly passed was eventually closed after the bank flagged it as suspicious.

That evidence, together with the financial records and ownership documents tendered before the court, forms part of the state’s attempt to establish a chain linking the alleged diversion of public funds to the acquisition of private assets.

What witnesses have told the court

The prosecution has called witnesses to establish how money allegedly moved between the various accounts.

One early witness, chauffeur and former errand worker Frank Anane Dekpey, told the court that he carried out several banking transactions on instructions from people connected to the accused.

He testified about collecting money from banks, making deposits and withdrawals and delivering funds, including transactions involving Vertex Solutions Limited. The defence also questioned him about his detention and interrogation by EOCO.

Where the case stands now

The prosecution had indicated in July that it was preparing to close its case after presenting what it described as extensive evidence.

However, the case has continued into September, with Adu-Boahene’s lawyers on September 8, 2026 expected to conclude their cross-examination of an EOCO witness.

The prolonged proceedings have therefore moved into a decisive phase: the prosecution is seeking to establish its allegations beyond reasonable doubt, while the defence continues to test the state’s evidence.

For Adu-Boahene and the other accused, the allegations remain just that — allegations — until determined by the court.

After 18 months of testimony and financial evidence, the central question is no longer simply where the GH¢49.1 million came from, but whether the prosecution can ultimately prove that it was unlawfully diverted and used for private benefit.