The Attorney-General’s Department has described as “frivolous” an application by lawyers for former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene, accusing the prosecution of fabricating evidence and misrepresenting witness testimony in the ongoing criminal trial.

In a post shared by the Deputy Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Justice Srem-Sai, he said the prosecution would not file a formal response to the application, which seeks to strike out portions of its submissions opposing the accused persons’ submission of no case to answer.

“Our Prosecutors have decided to not file any formal response to this motion. It is, in our view, frivolous,” he wrote.

He added that the application had been adjourned to Thursday, October 29, 2026, for hearing.

The application, filed on October 19, 2026, by defence counsel Samuel Atta Akyea, alleges that several assertions in the prosecution’s submissions, filed on October 9, 2026, are not supported by the evidence presented during the trial.

The defence contends that the prosecution attributed statements to witnesses that they did not make and relied on documentary evidence to advance claims that were not established in court.

The lawyers are asking the High Court to strike out the disputed portions of the prosecution’s submissions or, alternatively, direct that they be disregarded when determining whether the accused persons have a case to answer.

Dispute over witness testimony

One of the principal issues raised in the application concerns Exhibits X and 11, which the defence says the prosecution characterised as forged or fabricated documents.

According to the application, the prosecution attributed to witnesses PW2 and PW4 testimony suggesting that the exhibits were not genuine. The defence disputes this account, arguing that neither witness testified that the documents were forged.

The application further notes that PW2 was discharged on April 27, 2026, while Exhibit X was admitted in evidence through PW4 on June 22, 2026. The defence argues that PW2 could not have testified about the exhibit during her testimony.

The lawyers also challenge the prosecution’s alleged reliance on PW2’s testimony to suggest that the NSB had no contract with ISC Holdings Limited for the cyber-defence system. They maintain that the witness acknowledged the processing and payment of an invoice relating to the system, including delivery and acceptance milestones.

The defence similarly disputes the prosecution’s alleged assertion that PW2 testified that the NSB did not know BNC Communications Bureau Limited or its bank account.

GH¢49.1 million transaction disputed

The application also challenges the prosecution’s alleged characterisation of testimony concerning GH¢49.1 million linked to the cyber-defence system transaction.

The defence disputes the assertion that PW3 testified that the entire amount was spent on the accused persons, their friends, associates and family members rather than on an official or approved purpose.

According to the application, PW3 identified ISC International Security Consultants Holdings Limited as the beneficiary of Exhibits 19 and 20 and read the remittance information as relating to the procurement of a cyber-defence system under invoice NSC006.

The lawyers argue that the testimony does not support the prosecution’s interpretation of the transaction.

Adu-Boahene’s lawyers ask court to strike out fabricated, invented evidence in Deputy AG’s submissions

Another disputed issue concerns Exhibit H, which the prosecution allegedly relied on to suggest that payments were made from a company’s bank account to Adu-Boahene’s mother for a building project in Kumasi.

The defence argues that the exhibit is merely a photograph of a building and does not constitute a bank statement or contain accounting annotations establishing the alleged payments.

It also cites testimony attributed to PW4 acknowledging that there were no direct payments from the accounts analysed towards Dorchester Heights, the property identified in the proceedings as the Kumasi project.

Defence challenges prosecution’s submissions

In its supporting affidavit, the defence argues that legal submissions must be grounded in evidence properly admitted before the court and that neither party can introduce new evidence through written arguments.

It maintains that relying on facts that were not established during the trial amounts to giving evidence from the bar, which it argues is impermissible under the applicable rules of evidence and court procedure.

The lawyers are therefore seeking an order striking out the specific passages identified in their application or directing the court to disregard them when considering the submission of no case to answer.

Background to the case

The application follows the prosecution’s closure of its case on September 8, 2026. The accused persons filed their submission of no case to answer on September 25, 2026, while the prosecution filed its opposition on October 9, 2026.

A submission of no case to answer asks the court to determine whether the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to require the accused persons to open their defence.

The latest application raises a separate question about whether the prosecution’s written arguments accurately reflect the evidence presented during the trial.

The High Court is expected to hear the application on Thursday, October 29, 2026. The prosecution’s decision not to file a formal response does not, in itself, determine the merits of the defence’s allegations, which remain matters for the court to consider.



BAI

Guns and Drugs: Dr Adam Bonaa Warns of Growing Security Threat to Ghana