Lawyers for former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene have asked the High Court to expunge portions of the prosecution’s written arguments in opposition to the accused persons’ submission of no case to answer, alleging that they contain fabricated statements and misrepresentations of evidence presented during the trial.
The application, filed on October 19, 2026, by defence counsel Samuel Atta Akyea, challenges sections of the Deputy Attorney-General’s submissions filed on October 9, 2026.
The defence argues that some passages attribute statements to prosecution witnesses that were never made and refer to facts that were not established in evidence or recorded in the proceedings.
In an affidavit supporting the application, the accused persons contend that the prosecution introduced invented statements and paragraphs that do not exist in the court record.
They maintain that legal submissions must be based strictly on evidence admitted during proceedings and that neither party can introduce new evidence through arguments presented by counsel.
Defence disputes prosecution’s account of witness testimony
A major issue raised in the application concerns Exhibits X and 11, which the prosecution allegedly described as forged or fabricated documents.
The defence disputes the attribution of such testimony to prosecution witnesses PW2 and PW4, arguing that neither witness testified that the exhibits were forged.
The lawyers further point to the chronology of the proceedings, noting that PW2 was discharged on April 27, 2026, while Exhibit X was admitted through PW4 on June 22, 2026.
According to the defence, this sequence undermines any suggestion that PW2 testified about the exhibit during her appearance in court.
The application also challenges the prosecution’s alleged reliance on PW2’s testimony to argue that the NSB had no contract with ISC Holdings Limited for the supply of a cyber-defence system.
The defence maintains that the witness acknowledged the processing and payment of an invoice connected to the system, including milestones relating to delivery and acceptance.
Additionally, the lawyers dispute the claim attributed to PW2 that the NSB did not know BNC Communications Bureau Limited or its bank account.
They argue that the witness’s comments about the account were based on her assumption that it was an operational account and should not be presented as establishing the broader claim advanced by the prosecution.
GH¢49.1m transaction at centre of dispute
The defence has also challenged the prosecution’s alleged interpretation of evidence concerning GH¢49.1 million linked to the cyber-defence system transaction.
According to the application, the prosecution’s submissions suggest that PW3 testified that the entire amount was spent on the accused persons, their friends, associates and family members rather than for an official or approved purpose.
The defence argues that this characterisation does not reflect the witness’s actual testimony.
It states that 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 contend that this evidence does not support the prosecution’s alleged description of the transaction.
Another point of contention involves Exhibit H, which the prosecution allegedly cited to support claims that money was transferred from a company’s bank account to Adu-Boahene’s mother for a building project in Kumasi.
The defence argues that Exhibit H is a photograph of a building and not a bank statement, nor does it contain accounting annotations demonstrating that the alleged payments were made.
It also refers to testimony attributed to PW4 acknowledging that no direct payments from the accounts analysed were made towards Dorchester Heights, the property identified in the proceedings as the Kumasi project.
Defence wants disputed passages struck out
In their supporting affidavit, the accused persons argue that a party cannot ask the court to rely on facts that have not been established through evidence.
They contend that introducing such material in written submissions amounts to giving evidence from the bar, which they maintain is impermissible under the applicable rules of evidence and court procedure.
The defence is therefore asking the High Court to strike out the specific passages identified in the application. Alternatively, it wants the court to disregard those portions when determining whether the accused persons have a case to answer.
The application does not itself determine whether the disputed passages are inaccurate or whether the prosecution’s arguments are legally inadmissible. Those questions remain for the court to consider.
Application comes ahead of ruling on no-case submission
The latest motion 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, before the prosecution submitted its opposition on October 9.
A submission of no case to answer asks the court to assess whether the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to require the accused persons to open their defence.
The defence’s latest application raises a related procedural issue by challenging what it describes as inaccuracies and fabricated material in the prosecution’s written arguments. Its outcome could determine whether the contested passages will remain part of the material considered by the court as it evaluates the no-case submission.
The High Court is being asked to ensure that its determination is based on the evidence properly placed on record and the parties’ arguments grounded in that evidence.