Private legal practitioner Kwesi Botchway Jnr has argued that the state’s prosecution of Kwabena Adu Boahene, the former Director General of the National Signals Bureau (NSB), is fundamentally flawed and devoid of credible evidence.
Through an analytical piece titled “Shocking Revelations: Why Kwabena Adu Boahene Will Walk Free,” the lawyer asserted that the prosecution’s case is riddled with inconsistencies, evidentiary gaps, and contradictions that could ultimately result in an acquittal.
Mr Botchway Jnr, who was recently appointed Secretary to the NPP’s Security Committee, made these observations in response to commentary from various government officials.
This includes remarks by the Deputy Attorney General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, regarding the likelihood of securing convictions against Adu Boahene and others standing trial for the alleged diversion of GH¢49.1 million intended for a cyber-defence procurement project.
The legal practitioner maintained that despite the gravity of the allegations and intense public interest, the state has failed to present a coherent or legally sustainable case.
He emphasised that public outrage, political rhetoric, and media narratives are no substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt. “The state may have a politically explosive case, but winning in court is a different matter entirely as the court deals with material evidence, facts and a coherent story,” he stated.
He further explained that under the Ghanaian criminal justice system, the burden of proof rests solely with the prosecution. Citing Article 19(2) of the 1992 Constitution, he noted that every accused person is presumed innocent and that Adu Boahene is under no obligation to prove his innocence.
To reinforce this, he referenced the landmark English case of Woolmington v DPP, in which Lord Sankey held that “it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the accused’s guilt,” a foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence in common law jurisdictions like Ghana.
He also relied on Miller v Minister of Pensions and Bakare v The State* to argue that convictions require evidence that leaves no room for reasonable uncertainty.
According to Mr Botchway Jnr, a significant setback for the prosecution is the testimony of its own key witness, Edith Ruby Opokua Adumuah, the Head of Finance at the NSB.
While the Attorney General has characterised the GH¢49.1 million transaction as fraudulent and linked it to an undelivered system, the witness testified that the payments were “genuine special operations transactions” which she personally authorised following delivery and acceptance procedures.
The lawyer contended that such testimony fundamentally undermines the prosecution’s narrative and introduces substantial doubt regarding the alleged criminality of the transactions.
He said further inconsistencies were highlighted regarding the alleged disappearance of funds.
Under cross-examination, the prosecution witness reportedly admitted she was unaware of any theft within the national security apparatus and had never reported any losses to the Auditor General, EOCO, the police, or her superiors.
Mr Botchway Jnr argued that this creates a “serious evidentiary problem,” as the institution at the heart of the case did not initially treat the transactions as theft.
The prosecution’s characterisation of certain accounts as Adu Boahene’s personal property was also challenged. Defence counsel established during cross-examination that these were actually operational accounts used for special National Security activities.
The prosecution witness admitted that the National Security Coordinator possessed the authority to open such special-purpose accounts and designate signatories. “She also testified that she personally transacted on the account several times.
She told the court that she personally paid two of the three disputed cheques into the said account and also withdrew several sums of money from the account,” he stated.
Mr Botchway Jnr argued that if the court accepts this explanation, the state’s attempt to portray these movements as suspicious will collapse.
Technical discrepancies regarding the valuation of the funds were also raised. While the Attorney General publicly claimed that GH¢49.1 million was equivalent to seven million dollars, the prosecution witness admitted that the 2020 exchange rates did not support this exact figure.
Though seemingly minor, the lawyer argued that such details are critical in financial crime cases where precise accounting is necessary to prove intent.
He further suggested that the optics of large cash withdrawals in “Ghana Must Go” bags do not inherently prove a crime, noting the witness’s testimony that such movements were routine within National Security operations.
The admission of WhatsApp messages between Adu Boahene and the finance head has reportedly further complicated the state’s position. Portions of these messages allegedly link the disputed transfers to legitimate operational requests and field expenses.
Mr Botchway Jnr maintained that this supports the defence’s view that the prosecution has selectively interpreted transactions while ignoring evidence of official usage.
Furthermore, the claim that the cyber-defence system was never procured was contradicted by the Head of Finance, who testified that she approved payments only after confirmation of delivery.
She noted that only the Israeli vendor, ISC Holdings, and top officials could confirm the current location of the equipment.
A final point of contention involves the source of the funds. The witness testified that while official government funds are processed through the Ghana Integrated Financial Management Information System (GIFMIS), the special-purpose accounts at Fidelity Bank never received such funds. Consequently, the disputed GH¢49.1 million was not part of the 2020 budget she prepared, raising questions as to whether the money can be legally classified as public funds.
While Mr Botchway Jnr acknowledged that these contradictions do not automatically prove innocence, he insisted they introduce sufficient reasonable doubt to strengthen the defence.
“In criminal law, especially in complex financial crime cases, prosecutors must present a consistent, coherent and unambiguous narrative,” he stressed. He concluded that without conclusive documentary evidence of unlawful enrichment or criminal intent, the court may have no choice but to acquit. “Unless the prosecution can conclusively prove unlawful enrichment and criminal intent beyond reasonable doubt, the court could acquit him,” he stated, suggesting that the high evidentiary standards required in criminal trials have yet to be met.
By: Rainbowradioonline.com/Ghana
