The criminal trial of former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene, his wife Angela Adjei-Boateng, Mildred Donkor, and Advantage Solutions Limited remains one of Ghana’s most closely watched high-profile cases. At its centre is the alleged diversion of GH¢49.1 million (approximately US$7 million at the material time) linked to a cyber-defence procurement contract. On 8 September 2026, the prosecution formally closed its case. This comprehensive update covers the background, charges, evidence presented, defence position, key procedural developments, and the current stage of proceedings.
In January 2020, while serving as Director-General of the National Signals Bureau (then known as the Bureau of National Communications), Kwabena Adu-Boahene signed a contract on behalf of the Government of Ghana/National Security with an Israeli company, ISC Holdings Limited (sometimes referenced in earlier reports in related contexts as RLC Holdings). The agreement was for the supply of a cyber-defence system software at a price of US$7 million.
Prosecutors allege that shortly afterwards, beginning around 6 February 2020, three cheques totalling GH¢49.1 million were issued from an NSB/National Security-linked account at Fidelity Bank. These funds were deposited into a Universal Merchant Bank (UMB) account held in the name of BNC Communications Bureau Limited (or a closely similar private company name), an entity linked to Adu-Boahene and his wife. The prosecution maintains the transfers were falsely described as payments for the cyber-defence system.
The Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) and the Attorney-General’s Department investigated the matter. Asset-freezing orders were obtained in relation to properties linked to the couple, including developments associated with Vertex Properties in Oyarifa and properties at Mayfair Estates/Gardens.
On 30 April 2025, the Attorney-General formally charged Adu-Boahene, Angela Adjei-Boateng, Mildred Donkor, and Advantage Solutions Limited with 11 counts. These include:
- Stealing
- Money laundering
- Wilfully causing financial loss to the State
- Conspiracy to commit crime
- Using public office for private gain
- Defrauding by false pretences
- Related offences
All accused persons pleaded not guilty. The trial is ongoing at the Accra High Court. Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai has publicly summarised the prosecution’s position on multiple occasions, including detailed posts on X (@JusticeSremSai). The core allegation is that Adu-Boahene used “clever means” to move GH¢49.1 million of State agency money into a private company account and that the funds were subsequently spent on personal benefit (houses in prime locations, luxury vehicles, real-estate investments, and payments to family, friends and associates) rather than on the claimed cyber-defence system.
On 8 September 2026, the prosecution closed its case after calling four witnesses:
1. Family driver of Adu-Boahene and his wife – Testified that he ran money errands and carried large sums of cash from banks to the couple, their family, friends and associates.
2. Head of Finance of the State agency (National Security/NSB apparatus) – Gave evidence on institutional processes for handling funds and procuring defence systems. Key points attributed to this witness include: the names on the three cheques did not match the account into which they were deposited; no such cyber-defence system was ordered by the agency; the invoice identification number relied upon by the first accused belonged to different equipment previously purchased by the agency; and the deposit account was not an official State agency account and was unknown to the agency.
3. Employee who handled the couple’s personal financial and business affairs – Testified about how funds moved through Advantage Solutions Limited and other entities; bank dealings; a suspicious transaction report filed by the bank that led to the account being closed; real-estate investments; and pre-signed cheques (some paid to builders working on properties in Accra and Asokore Mampong).
4. EOCO investigator – Tendered the three cheques and deposit slips; company incorporation and bank-account opening documents; bank statements showing the movement and spending of the funds; property purchase receipts and ownership documents linking acquisitions to the private accounts; and details of Adu-Boahene’s civil-service salary over approximately two decades compared with the assets and companies owned.
Earlier summaries by the Deputy Attorney-General (notably an 18 July 2026 post) listed additional points the prosecution says are in evidence: that the GH¢49.1 million originated from a government agency account (with no dispute in court on its source); that a fresh private company account was opened on the day of the first cheque using a name designed to resemble a government agency; detailed tracing of spending within six months on houses and luxury cars; initial denials of ownership of certain companies, accounts and properties followed by admissions; the claim that the funds were used for 2024 political campaigns being described as misleading; the account being flagged as suspicious by the bank; the equipment never having been bought; and alleged forged purchase receipts.
The defence, led by counsel including Samuel Atta Akyea, maintains that the funds formed part of legitimate National Security special operations monies rather than a straightforward $7 million cyber-defence procurement alone. They argue that the BNC-related account functioned as an authorised special-purpose vehicle for sensitive transactions, that National Security operatives (including finance staff) transacted on the account, that approximately GH¢9.5 million was paid to ISC Holdings, and that the cyber-defence system was supplied and is operational.
Adu-Boahene has previously detailed various operational disbursements in correspondence (including payments related to personnel, counter-terrorism support, parliamentary committee allowances linked to NSB legislation, election-related support, and vehicles). The defence has challenged the precise GH¢49.1 million figure (citing exchange-rate differences), the characterisation of the account as purely private, claims of sole control, and the alleged direct link between certain property payments and the contested funds. Cross-examination has focused on these issues, the role of other National Security officials, and gaps in the prosecution’s narrative.
The case has seen multiple interlocutory applications. These include requests for further disclosures of National Security records, attempts to remove the trial judge (dismissed by the Supreme Court), and litigation over the scope of disclosure obligations. The Supreme Court has issued rulings affecting practice directions on relevance and disclosure of materials in the possession of prosecutors. The Court of Appeal has also directed certain disclosures at earlier stages.
The trial has proceeded through periods of intensive sittings, including during legal vacation periods, attracting commentary from civil society and legal observers on the balance between expedition and fairness in high-stakes national security-related prosecutions.
With the prosecution’s case closed, the High Court has directed the accused persons to file their submission of no case to answer by 25 September 2026. The Republic is required to respond within 14 days of service. The matter is adjourned to 5 November 2026.
A no-case submission invites the court to determine whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case requiring the accused to open their defence. If the submission succeeds in whole or in part, some or all charges could be dismissed. If it fails, the defence will be called upon to present its case.
The trial sits at the intersection of national security secrecy, public financial accountability, and the criminal justice process. Prosecutors emphasise the need to protect public funds even when transactions occur under the umbrella of sensitive security operations. The defence stresses the specialised nature of National Security funding, the operational context, and the risk that incomplete disclosure or mischaracterisation of accounts could produce injustice.
Ghanaian courts have repeatedly affirmed that national security considerations do not create a blanket immunity from accountability. At the same time, the rules of evidence, disclosure, and the presumption of innocence remain fully applicable.
As of 8 September 2026, the prosecution has closed its case in The Republic v Kwabena Adu-Boahene & 2 Others. The next decisive procedural step is the no-case submission due by 25 September 2026, with the matter returning to court on 5 November 2026. The final determination will rest with the High Court after full consideration of the evidence and legal arguments from both sides.
This remains an active criminal trial. All accused persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Readers should follow official court records and verified reporting for further developments.
Comments
Post a Comment