The Deputy Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, has stated that the ongoing trial of former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau (NSB), Kwabena Adu-Boahene, has changed an important law on prosecution in Ghana.

According to him, before a recent Supreme Court ruling on the case, accused persons were required to prove the relevance of the disclosures they requested from prosecutors to aid their defence.

He explained that the law mandated accused persons not only to show the relevance of the evidence they were seeking but also to prove that it had been obtained by state prosecutors during the investigation of the charges against them.

“Before last week, October 29, when the Supreme Court decided The Republic v Adu-Boahene case, there were, by case law and practice direction, two criteria for determining what an accused person may get through further disclosures.

"The first criterion is the RELEVANCE rule. This says that an accused person can, by way of further disclosures, get from the prosecutor only evidence which has a bearing on proving that she is guilty or not guilty. If it is not relevant, it won’t be disclosed.

"The second is the POSSESSION rule. It says that the evidence which the accused person asks for must be evidence which came into the hands of investigators during the investigation of the offences with which the accused person is charged,” he said.

Srem-Sai noted that the recent Supreme Court ruling removed the requirement for accused persons to prove that the documents they seek from the state are relevant to the case.

“The Adu-Boahene case has changed this law: The RELEVANCE rule no longer applies. That is to say that an accused person doesn’t have to show that the evidence, disclosure of which she seeks, is relevant to proving anything. Relevance will be determined at the trial.

"She only has to concern herself with the POSSESSION rule. That is — she just has to show that the evidence she seeks came into the investigators’ hands during the investigation of the offence with which she is charged,” he wrote.

GH¢49m National Security Case: NSB staff, 'errand boy' file witness statement against Adu-Boahene

About the trial:

Adu-Boahene, Adjei-Boateng, and their company face 11 charges for allegedly transferring GH¢49 million (approximately $7 million) from the bureau’s account to their personal accounts.

Addressing the press on Monday, March 24, 2025, Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Dr Dominic Akuritinga Ayine, stated that Adu-Boahene was implicated in the unauthorised transfer of $7 million, originally allocated for cybersecurity infrastructure, into his private accounts.

“In his capacity as Director of the National Signals Bureau, Mr. Adu-Boahene, on January 30, 2020, signed a contract on behalf of the Government of Ghana and the National Security on the one hand, and on the other hand, an Israeli company named RLC Holdings Limited. The contract was for the purchase of a cyber defence system software at a price of $7 million,” the Attorney General said.

Providing further details, Dr Ayine disclosed that just days after signing the agreement, Adu-Boahene initiated a suspicious transaction.

“On February 6, 2020, he then transferred an initial amount of GH¢27,100,000 from the National Signals Bureau account at Fidelity Bank to a private BNC account at UMB. Official documentation on the transfer reveals that the amount was for the payment of cyber defence system software. He transferred the money to his private company,” he told the media in Accra.

According to Dr Ayine, investigations further uncovered that the former NSB boss allegedly channelled the funds not only into his personal account but also into accounts belonging to his wife.

Read his full write-up below:

NEW LAW ALERT

The law requires a prosecutor to facilitate an accused person’s defence. So, he is to disclose to the accused person every evidence which investigators found during investigations. So, before a trial begins, a prosecutor must file such disclosures.

The disclosures must include evidence which will show that the accused person is guilty. But that’s not all. It must also include evidence which the prosecutor knows or believes can help the accused person to show that she is not guilty.

Because the prosecutor cannot be trusted to voluntarily file every evidence (especially the one that he knows can show that the accused person is not guilty), the law allows the accused person to ask the court to direct the prosecutor to make further disclosures.

However, the accused person is not allowed to use the opportunity for further disclosures as a ploy to delay the trial or convert the prosecutor into defence counsel. So, there are limits to what the accused person can get from seeking further disclosures.

Before last week, October 29, when the Supreme Court decided The Republic v Adu-Boahene case, there were, by case law and practice direction, two criteria for determining what an accused person may get through further disclosures.

The first criterion is the RELEVANCE Rule. This says that an accused person can, by way of further disclosures, get from the prosecutor only evidence which has a bearing on proving that she is guilty or not guilty. If it is not relevant, it wont be disclosed.

The second is the POSSESSION rule. It says that the evidence which the accused person asks for must be evidence which came into the hands of investigators during the investigation of the offences which the accused person is charged with.

The Adu-Boahene case has changed this law: The RELEVANCE rule no longer applies. That is to say that an accused person doesn’t have to show that the evidence, disclosure of which she seeks, is relevant to proving anything. Relevance will be determined at the trial.

She only has to concern herself with the POSSESSION rule. That is - she just has to show that the evidence she seeks came into the investigators’ hands during the investigations of the offence which she is charged with.

Da yie.



BAI/MA

Watch the promo to GhanaWeb's latest documentary, which uncovers the evolution of ‘kayamata,' an exploitative practice fueled by love charms and manipulation, titled, “The Dark Side of Kayamata,' below:



#TrendingGH: What Ghanaians want from the 2026 budget: