Private legal practitioner and accounting professor Mr Kwaku Asare, popularly known as Kwaku Azar, has described the application by Kwabena Adu-Boahene, the former Director of the National Signals Bureau, for the release of all operational financial records held by the National Security Coordinator from 1992 to date as intriguing but problematic.
The lawyer argued that although the request falls within the legal framework of discovery, the request being made by the accused person is too broad.
He stated that discovery is indeed a stool that can enable the accused person to have access to information from the prosecution to prepare their defence; his request goes beyond the scope of the case pending before the court.
Mr Adu-Boahen, who is standing trial for multiple offences including stealing and fraud, in his new application has informed the court that “the production of these documents is vital to the constitutional right of the accused to a fair trial, particularly in a case where questions about financial oversight and accountability lie at the heart of the allegations.”
He further claims that transparency into how national security funds have been managed over the years will help “establish the broader context within which the accused persons operated.”
But Kwaku Azar says the accused is just embarking on a fishing expedition.
“This request smacks of a fishing expedition. That is, an attempt to trawl through volumes of information in the hopes of uncovering something useful.
Our courts, like others in common law jurisdictions, prohibit such speculative discovery. The law requires a showing that the documents requested are material to the defence. A 30-year audit of National Security records plainly fails that test.”
He believes the discovery request by the accused is not legitimate but overbroad and irrelevant to the charges, invasive of national security confidentiality, unsupported by law and a strategic distraction with no probative value.
He advised the accused to file a motion alleging abuse of prosecutorial discretion, not a demand to unearth 30 years of confidential files if he believes he is a victim of selective prosecution.
Read his full opinion below
Nananom, Anuanom, Nnamfonom, Yaanom:
Kwabena Adu-Boahene, the former Director of the National Signals Bureau, currently facing trial on multiple financial crime charges, has filed an intriguing application at the High Court requesting the release of all operational financial records held by the National Security Coordinator from 1992 to date.
According to the application, “the production of these documents is vital to the constitutional right of the accused to a fair trial, particularly in a case where questions about financial oversight and accountability lie at the heart of the allegations.”
He further argues that transparency into how national security funds have been managed over the years will help “establish the broader context within which the accused persons operated.”
GOGO is mindful that this matter is sub judice and that public commentary must be tempered to avoid prejudicing the ongoing trial.
However, given that this is a bench trial before a professional judge, not a jury, and considering the importance of demystifying legal processes for the public (the law without tears series), some analysis is warranted.
I. Discovery: A Powerful Yet Limited Tool
The request falls within the legal framework of discovery, a tool that enables the accused to access information from the prosecution to prepare their defense.
Discovery plays a crucial role in safeguarding fair trial rights, ensuring transparency, and preventing surprises during litigation. When used properly, it levels the playing field.
But discovery is not a free pass to demand anything and everything. Courts impose limits to prevent abuse, especially when requests are overly broad, irrelevant, or speculative.
Discovery must be specific, relevant, and necessary to the defense. It is not a license to conduct sprawling investigations into matters beyond the scope of the charges.
II. Why the Request Fails
Mr. Adu-Boahene’s request for nearly three decades of National Security operational accounts, spanning seven administrations, is problematic on several legal and evidentiary grounds:
- Irrelevance to the Specific Charges
The accused is not standing trial for institutional failures in national security spending across multiple governments. He is charged with:
- Stealing and conspiracy to steal
- Defrauding by false pretenses
- Willfully causing financial loss to the state
- Using public office for private gain
- Money laundering and related conspiracies
The prosecution’s case focuses on specific events: the alleged misuse of funds tied to a cybersecurity contract, personal transfers from government accounts to private ones, and unauthorized disbursements.
These are concrete, individualized allegations, not matters of policy or precedent. How funds were managed under previous governments does not make it more or less likely that the accused acted lawfully in 2020.
- Fishing Expedition Doctrine
This request smacks of a fishing expedition. That is, an attempt to trawl through volumes of information in the hopes of uncovering something useful.
Our courts, like others in common law jurisdictions, prohibit such speculative discovery. The law requires a showing that the documents requested are material to the defense. A 30-year audit of National Security records plainly fails that test.
- Classified and Sensitive Nature of the Records
National security operational accounts are inherently sensitive. They often contain:
- Classified expenditures
- Intelligence operations
- Covert or diplomatic missions
Access to such information is heavily restricted and subject to national security protections. A defendant has no automatic right to breach this veil, especially without demonstrating that the records are directly relevant and indispensable to defending the charges at hand.
- Diversion from the Real Issues
Contextualizing one’s conduct within historical patterns does not excuse criminal liability. Even if prior misuse of funds occurred (a claim unsupported here), it would not:
- Authorize the diversion of funds to private entities
- Justify personal enrichment from public accounts
•Break the chain of evidence in this specific case
This request improperly seeks to blur personal culpability with institutional trends, which courts rightly resist.
- Abuse of Process
The motion risks politicizing the trial by dragging in multiple past administrations. It invites the court into a political audit of successive governments rather than focusing on the alleged misconduct of the individuals before it.
Courts are not truth commissions. They adjudicate specific charges, not historical patterns.
- Alternative Remedies Exist
If the accused believes he is a victim of selective prosecution, the appropriate remedy is a motion alleging abuse of prosecutorial discretion, not a demand to unearth 30 years of confidential files. One does not fight selective enforcement by breaching state secrecy.
III. Conclusion
The discovery request is not legitimate. It is:
- Overbroad and irrelevant to the charges.
- Invasive of national security confidentiality.
- Unsupported by law.
- A strategic distraction with no probative value.
Discovery is a shield, not a sword. It must not be turned into a tool for delay, diversion, or political theater.
The court will likely reject this request and keep the focus where it belongs: on the law, the facts, and the individual accountability of the accused.
PS: “Yɛde post no bɛto hɔ. Yɛnyɛ comprehension consultants.”
Da Yie!
By: Rainbowradioonline.com/Ghana
