This follows revelations in court that the statements, believed to be crucial to the ongoing case of The Republic v. Kwabena Adu-Boahene and two others, were not included in the EOCO report before the court.

The directive was issued by the presiding judge, Justice Eugene Nyadu Nyantei, on Wednesday, November 12, 2025, after lead defence counsel, Samuel Atta Akyea, drew the court’s attention to inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witness, Madam Edith Ruby Opokua Adumuah, Head of Finance at the National Signals Bureau (NSB).

During proceedings, Mr. Atta Akyea raised concerns that the witness had earlier admitted to making three statements at EOCO, but two of them appeared to be missing from the case record. He therefore prayed the court to compel the prosecution to produce the omitted statements.

At both the bench and the bar, Mr. Atta Akyea insisted that “some three statements” made by the witness had been withheld from the court record, arguing that the missing documents might contain material information relevant to the defence’s case.

The presiding judge, after hearing arguments from both sides, questioned the witness directly.

“If you are given the opportunity, will you be able to remember the number of houses you told EOCO you owned?” he asked. Mrs. Adumuah replied, “Yes.”

The judge also observed that the witness appeared confused by certain questions during cross-examination and therefore advised her to answer “yes” or “no” before giving any explanations.

He emphasised that it was his duty to protect witnesses and ensure that they were not misled or pressured into unclear testimony.

Commenting on earlier exchanges between the bench and counsel, the judge stated that he had not altered the witness’s evidence as suggested by Mr. Atta Akyea, but had only sought to clarify her misunderstanding of the question concerning her three statements at EOCO.

The court further noted that it is not every civil servant who is aware of the commencement of a criminal case, after the witness indicated she did not know when the accused persons were first arraigned.

The judge subsequently invited both counsels to the bench for a brief consultation before directing the defence counsel to proceed with his final question.

In his ruling, the presiding judge ordered that the two missing witness statements be retrieved from EOCO and delivered to the court by close of day tomorrow.

He also directed that any audio recordings in EOCO’s custody relating to the witness’s interrogation, if available, should be procured by the Attorney-General and filed as part of further disclosures.

When Mr. Atta Akyea urged the court to allow the defence to fully probe the matter, describing the judge as “the referee” who must ensure that justice is not restrained, the judge assured him that he shared the same objective, stating, “That is my interest; leave that to me.”

Before adjourning the case, the presiding judge indicated that he would order the witness to produce certain letters referenced in her testimony on a later date.

The witness, Madam Adumuah, had earlier told the court that she often received instructions from her superior officers regarding financial matters at the NSB, sometimes through emails on which she was not copied directly.

“As I mentioned earlier, my boss is the one who sends it to me; sometimes I am not copied in the email, but I still take instructions from my boss on what to do,” she said this while being cross-examined. 

Lawyer Atta Akyea argued that the witness had already indicated she was informed by the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) that her engagement with the institution was being recorded.

Atta Akyea further explained that according to the Practice Direction on Disclosures and Case Management in Criminal Proceedings, 2018 (which lists audio, video and electronic recordings among disclosure materials)…”.

“So, why the opposition,” he questioned, “unless the Attorney-General intends to conceal exculpatory evidence? I do not see how this lawful request forms the basis for a preliminary objection.”

According to him, denying access to the audio evidence would amount to the concealment of material that is clearly admissible under the law.

“On this showing,” Lawyer Atta Akyea pleaded, “I crave your indulgence to overrule the opposition to further disclosures so that, in the ultimate interest of justice, My Lord will know what was said at EOCO and what is being said here in Court.”

However, the Deputy Attorney-General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, maintained that there exists no such audio recording.

The case has been adjourned to December 9, 10, and 11, 2025, for the continuation of cross-examination.

Cross-Examination

During the cross-examination, Lawyer also Atta Akyea questioned the witness on her encounter with EOCO and her role in the ongoing case.

Atta Akyea’s question: “In your testimony so far, you did not inform the court that when you voluntarily showed up at EOCO, you were arrested and later granted bail.”

Prosecution Witness answer: “No, I disagree.”

Question: “I further put it to you that you were a suspect in the case.”

Answer: “No.”

Question: “Indeed, EOCO informed you and your lawyer that you were being investigated for some crimes associated with your office.”

Answer: “No, I disagree.”

Question: “You told this Honourable Court that you gave three statements and one caution statement.”

Answer: “Yes, I gave three statements but I do not remember the caution statement.”

Question: “So was your house searched at all?”

Answer: “Yes.”

Question: “More than one of your houses was searched?”

Answer: “No, I was only asked to identify if I had other houses.”

Discover more

Activewear

Sports

Entertainment center

When Mr. Atta Akyea asked which of her other houses was not searched, the presiding judge restrained the witness from answering.

Discover more

Entertainment center

Sports

Activewear

Question: “Do you have other houses apart from the one that was searched?”

Answer: “Yes.”

At that point, the prosecution objected to further questioning on the issue, arguing that it was irrelevant to the case.

Mr. Atta Akyea rebutted that the line of questioning was relevant because it followed the witness’s own statement made to EOCO.

He maintained that disallowing the question could distort the proceedings and subvert the rules of cross-examination. “If the Deputy Attorney General believes their witness should not be cross-examined, then she should not have been fielded in the first place,” he argued, urging the court to overrule the objection.

Question: “Per the documents before you, you were not charged by EOCO?”

Answer: “Yes, I believe investigations are meant to find out the truth, so if EOCO says I was not charged, I have nothing to say about it.”

Question: “The three statements you disclosed to EOCO exclude the one you signed out of EOCO on May 9, 2025?”

Answer: “Yes.”

At this point, Mr. Atta Akyea prayed the court to order that the three other statements be produced before the judge to enable him to continue his cross-examination. The presiding judge, however, directed that the witness’s previous answer be corrected, stating that she had misunderstood the question.

Question: “When you appeared before EOCO, were you told that the interrogation was being recorded?”

Answer: “Yes.”

Question: “You are to testify to the truth, and that truth may not necessarily be limited to your office?”

Answer: “I have a letter from my office directing me to come to court to testify.”

Question: “Is it not the case that only a suspect is admitted to bail?”

Answer: “I don’t know.”

Question: “I put it to you that EOCO admitted you to bail because you were a suspect.”

Answer: “I don’t know.”

Mr. Atta Akyea also revisited issues of invoices presented in the witness’s earlier testimony.

Question: “At the last sitting, you made a comparison between two invoices with the same number, NSC006, generated by ICS. Holdings Ltd. Can you refresh your memory on this matter?”

Answer: “Yes.”

Question: “The items in both invoices are different?”

Answer: “They are two different items with the same invoice number.”

Question: “With one of the invoices, who was it addressed to? And what about the other?”

Answer: “One was addressed to the National Security Council, Accra-Ghana, and the other to BNC.”

After several exchanges and objections, the presiding judge, Justice Eugene Nyadu Nyantei, adjourned the proceedings to December 9, 10, and 11, 2025, for the continuation of cross-examination.

ALSO READ:

• Supreme Court dismisses motion to bar Justice Nyante Nyadu from Adu-Boahene trial

• Atta Akyea defends courtroom walkout in Adu-Boahene’s trial

He said the High Court should have paused proceedings until the Supreme Court ruled on the motion.

“I had filed a motion at the Supreme Court asking that the judge be prohibited from handling the matter because we do not believe justice will be served. I informed the court and requested an adjournment until the Supreme Court decides. The judge declined and insisted on proceeding,” he told reporters.

The former Works and Housing Minister questioned the urgency with which the trial was being pushed forward, describing the judge’s approach as unnecessary haste.

“Why the rush? Why can’t the judge wait for a week for the Supreme Court’s decision before continuing?” he asked.

In court earlier, Principal State Attorney Esi Dentaa Yankah had opposed the adjournment request, arguing that there was no legal reason to suspend the trial.

Justice Nyantei then ruled that the case would continue, allowing the second prosecution witness to take the stand even after the defence team’s exit.

The dispute now hinges on the Supreme Court’s pending decision regarding the motion to prohibit.

Mr Adu-Boahene, his wife, Angela Adjei Boateng, and two others are currently facing multiple charges, including theft, money laundering involving approximately GH¢49.1 million, causing financial loss to the state, and abuse of public office.

A third accused person, Mildred Donkor, has turned state witness after charges against her were withdrawn.

Source: Adomonline

ALSO READ:

• Drama in court as Adu-Boahene’s lawyers stage walkout

• Adu-Boahene trial: Mildred Donkor played no role in alleged theft – Lawyer

He therefore requested that proceedings be put on hold until the Supreme Court determined the matter.

However, the prosecution, led by Principal State Attorney Esi Dentaa Yankah, opposed the application, arguing that there was no legal justification to suspend the case.

“There is no rule of law that requires proceedings to be halted simply because counsel has filed an interlocutory injunction,” Ms. Yankah said, accusing the defence of using delay tactics.

She added that similar motions had been filed previously, slowing down the progress of the trial.

“It seems a trend is developing where at every stage, one motion or another is filed to delay proceedings,” she noted.

After hearing both arguments, Justice Nyantei ruled that the filing of a prohibition application at the Supreme Court was **not sufficient grounds** to suspend the ongoing trial.

The decision visibly displeased the defence team. Mr. Atta Akyea then gathered his colleagues and **walked out of the courtroom**.

Unperturbed, Justice Nyantei ordered the Director of Finance at the National Signals Bureau, who was the prosecution’s second witness, to take the stand and continue her testimony.

The judge further instructed Mr. Adu Boahene to either recall his lawyers or represent himself. The court later went on a brief recess.

When proceedings resumed, Mr. Adu Boahene informed the judge that he had been unable to reach his legal team and appealed for an adjournment. Justice Nyantei subsequently granted the request and adjourned the case to October 30, 2025, for continuation.

Mr. Adu Boahene, together with his wife Angela Adjei Boateng and two others, faces multiple charges, including stealing, money laundering involving an alleged GH¢49.1 million, willfully causing financial loss to the state, and abuse of public office.

The third accused person, Mildred Donkor, has since become a prosecution witness after the Attorney-General withdrew charges against her.

Source: Adomonline

ALSO READ:

• Adu-Boahene trial: Mildred Donkor played no role in alleged theft – Lawyer

• Accra High Court dismisses application to halt Adu-Boahene’s trial pending appeal

• Adu-Boahene trial: A-G withdraws charges against third accused

The decision follows an agreement with Mildred Donkor, the third accused, to serve as a witness for the prosecution.

In a notice filed at the High Court in Accra on October 15, 2025, the Deputy Attorney General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, confirmed that Ms. Donkor had been discharged under Section 59 of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30).

The notice formally withdrew her from prosecution in relation to all charges brought against her.

Ms. Donkor will now appear as a prosecution witness in the case against Mr. Adu-Boahene (1st Accused), Angela Adjei Boateng (2nd Accused), and Advantage Solutions Limited (4th Accused).

In her witness statement, she described her professional relationship with both Mr. Adu-Boahene and Madam Adjei Boateng, noting that they first met through the Cedar Mountain Assemblies of God Church in East Legon, Accra.

She explained that she was listed as a director of Advantage Solutions Limited at Mr. Adu-Boahene’s request to meet registration requirements but had no actual decision-making power within the company.

“I took no major decisions – whether financial, operational, or strategic – on my own. I followed the instructions of A1 and A2,” she stated.

According to Ms. Donkor, she managed several transactions on behalf of the accused persons, including withdrawing and delivering large cash amounts from accounts belonging to Advantage Solutions Limited and BNC Communications Bureau Limited.

She said the two provided her with pre-signed cheque books, authorising her to fill in specified amounts—ranging from GH¢2,000 to GH¢1 million—and withdraw funds as directed. An indemnity letter had also been issued to the bank to enable her third-party withdrawals.

Ms. Donkor noted that she routinely delivered the withdrawn cash either to Mr. Adu-Boahene, Madam Adjei Boateng, or to Madam Margaret Aba Donkor, identified as Mr. Adu-Boahene’s mother.

She also cited a transaction on April 29, 2020, in which GH¢2.5 million was transferred from the account of BNC Communications Bureau Limited to I-ZAR Limited, a company owned by Rashida Saani, under the instruction of Mr. Adu-Boahene.

She concluded that she was never a formal employee of Advantage Solutions Limited, had no written contract, and acted only on informal directions from the two main accused persons.

Source: Adomonline

ALSO READ:

• NSB Scandal: Mildred Donkor asks for new lawyer to replace Atta-Akyea

• Adu-Boahene’s lawyer reveals Kan-Dapaah is ‘critical witness’ in GH¢49m cybersecurity saga

According to Botchway, the charges filed against Adu-Boahene—including stealing, defrauding by false pretences, wilfully causing financial loss to the state, and using public office for profit—were based on a false claim that Ghana never received the cybersecurity system contracted in 2020.

EOCO alleged that Adu-Boahene dishonestly appropriated GH¢27.1 million under the pretext of procuring a cyber defence system from ISC Holdings Limited, which it claimed was never delivered.

In a Facebook post, Botchway countered that the system was indeed delivered and is currently in use by the state. He cited President John Mahama’s statement during the Presidential Media Encounter on September 10, 2025, confirming that the NSB had been equipped with technology capable of tracking individuals behind online hate speech and abusive messages.

“The President’s statement is a direct confirmation of the functionality of the cyber defence system that was procured under Mr. Adu-Boahene’s leadership,” Botchway said. He also noted that ISC Holdings Limited confirmed in writing that the equipment had been delivered, which he argued undermines EOCO’s case.

Botchway further accused EOCO, led by Raymond Archer, of misleading the Attorney-General’s Department with inaccurate reports. He criticised the current National Security leadership for remaining silent despite continuing to use the system.

Describing the situation as a breach of trust, he warned that “such conduct is cancerous to nation-building,” and cited scripture, noting that EOCO’s actions amounted to violating the commandment against false testimony.

“Fellow Ghanaians, the irony is that the succeeding National Security is silent and giving oxygen to EOCO’s official deception,” he added, while thanking President Mahama for indirectly confirming the system’s existence.

Source: Adomonline

ALSO READ:

• Adu-Boahene’s lawyer reveals Kan-Dapaah is ‘critical witness’ in GH¢49m cybersecurity saga

• Adu-Boahene Trial: AG withholding key documents – Atta-Akyea alleges

• Deputy AG reacts to claims of missing evidence in Adu-Boahene’s case

Speaking on JoyNews Today, Mr. Atta-Akyea alleged that the AG had been “selective” in providing information crucial to the defence.

“The AG has been selective in furnishing us with the documents it wants to file. In fact, we brought it to the attention of the judge that in a very consequential bank account, they’ve decided not to include the full volume of the bank account,” he said.

According to him, the missing details could prove his client’s innocence. “What is exculpatory of Adu-Boahene and why the AG should give it to us… The evidence that will aid the accused persons to conduct their case… should be given to them,” he stressed.

The defence further argued that while the prosecution alleged funds were withdrawn from a private B&C account to purchase properties in Kumasi and London, no supporting details had been disclosed.

“So give us when this purchase took place, let us have who owned the property, the vendor, when was it sold, and how much. They couldn’t give it,” he added.

Mr. Atta-Akyea insisted that fair trial standards require full disclosure by the prosecution.

“The fair trial requirement is that you shouldn’t withhold information that should aid the innocence of the accused person. Because the AG is not a prosecutor; an AG is supposed to hold the scales of justice even,” he noted, describing the alleged conduct as “unprofessional.”

He also criticised recent public comments by Deputy Attorney-General Justice Srem Sai on the matter as “unfortunate” and undermining due process.

Meanwhile, Justice Srem Sai has firmly rejected the claims. In a post on X on Thursday, August 28, he dismissed suggestions that the Attorney-General’s office had lost evidence in the Republic v. Adu-Boahene trial.

“The Attorney-General’s office has not lost any evidence regarding the ongoing Republic v. Adu-Boahene criminal trial,” he wrote.

According to him, all relevant documents remain intact and have been duly filed before the court.

“As of June 18, we had filed all the documents that we intend to rely on to prove the charges against the four accused persons in the case.

“The documents include contracts of sale, bank wire transfer records, bank account statements, company registration documents, property ownership records and purchase receipts, INTERPOL stolen vehicle records, investigative caution statements and charge statements of each accused person, records of asset non-declaration, a flow chart of money movements through a complex web of bank accounts, and testimonies of our three witnesses.”

Source: Prince Adu-Owusu

ALSO READ:

• Deputy AG reacts to claims of missing evidence in Adu-Boahene’s case

• Judge cautions against premature plea bargaining in Adu-Boahene’s case