Lead counsel for former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene, Samuel Atta Akyea, has filed a submission of no case to answer.
The lawyer is arguing that the prosecution has failed to establish sufficient evidence to require his clients to open their defence.
The submission follows the closure of the prosecution’s case in the trial involving Mr Adu-Boahene, his wife Angela Adjei-Boateng and another accused person over alleged financial misconduct involving GH¢49.1 million.
The defence was directed to file its submission by Friday, September 25, after the prosecution called four witnesses over the course of the trial.
The Attorney-General has been given 14 days to respond after being served with the defence’s submission.
Mr Akyea’s case is that significant evidential gaps, inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence and the absence of key witnesses undermine the State’s case.
A major aspect of the defence’s challenge concerns the prosecution’s account of the GH¢49.1 million allegedly earmarked for the procurement of a cybersecurity system.
The State alleges that the funds were transferred through three cheques from an account associated with National Security operations into an account belonging to BNC Communications Bureau Limited, a company linked to Mr Adu-Boahene and his wife.
The prosecution says the funds were subsequently dissipated and used for purposes unrelated to the intended procurement.
However, during cross-examination of the prosecution’s final witness, EOCO investigator Frank Marshall Cromwell, Mr Akyea challenged several aspects of the investigation and the conclusions drawn from the financial records.
One of the key issues was the nature and control of the account from which the GH¢49.1 million was transferred.
Evidence before the court indicated that the account had a signing mandate involving the National Security Coordinator and Mr Adu-Boahene, among others.
The three cheques at the centre of the prosecution’s case were also said to bear the signatures of the National Security Coordinator and Mr Adu-Boahene.
The defence relied on this evidence to challenge any suggestion that Mr Adu-Boahene had unilateral control over the funds.
Questions over cybersecurity system
The defence also raised questions about the prosecution’s evidence concerning the alleged cybersecurity procurement.
The State alleges that the GH¢49.1 million was intended to procure a cybersecurity system from Israeli company ISC Holdings but that the system was never delivered.
During cross-examination, however, the EOCO investigator acknowledged that the agency did not independently engage ISC Holdings to establish whether the system had been purchased and delivered.
He also confirmed that EOCO did not engage the National Security Council to independently verify whether the system had been procured and delivered.
The investigator had earlier rejected a document presented as evidence of the alleged cybersecurity procurement, describing it as lacking authenticity and containing inconsistencies in the company name and other details.
The defence has used those issues to question the completeness of the investigation and the basis for the prosecution’s conclusions.
Mr Akyea has also questioned the absence of key officials who, according to the defence, could have provided evidence about the National Security arrangements surrounding the funds.
Among those identified during the proceedings were former National Security Minister Albert Kan-Dapaah and the then National Security Coordinator.
The defence has argued that evidence from officials directly involved in the management and authorisation of the relevant National Security accounts could have provided important context for the transactions in dispute.
The defence has further challenged the prosecution’s attempts to directly link specific properties and other assets to the disputed GH¢49.1 million, with the EOCO investigator at various points unable to directly trace particular transactions to the funds in question.
The State maintains that it has presented sufficient evidence to establish that the GH¢49.1 million was public money intended for a cybersecurity project and that the funds were diverted into a private company account.
The prosecution has relied on bank statements, financial records, purchase receipts and ownership documents in seeking to demonstrate how the money was allegedly moved and spent.
It also alleges that GH¢9.54 million was transferred to ISC Holdings, but that no further payments were made towards the cybersecurity project. The remaining funds, according to the prosecution, were subsequently withdrawn or transferred and allegedly used for personal purposes.
The accused persons have pleaded not guilty to the charges, which include stealing, conspiracy to steal, defrauding by false pretences, wilfully causing financial loss to the state, using public office for profit and money laundering.
