The legal team representing former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General, Kwabena Adu-Boahene, and his co-accused has challenged the prosecution's evidence in the alleged GH¢49.1 million financial loss case. The defence argues that the prosecution's evidence does not establish that the GH¢49.1 million constituted public funds, that the transactions were unauthorised or that the accused persons caused any financial loss to the State.
The case centres on three cheques of GH¢27.1 million, GH¢1 million and GH¢21 million, amounting to GH¢49.1 million issued from an account at Fidelity Bank and subsequently linked to payments into an account at Universal Merchant Bank (UMB). The prosecution alleges that the accused persons unlawfully obtained the money under the pretext of procuring a cyber-defence system.
However, the defence has drawn attention to what it describes as inconsistencies in the prosecution's own evidence, particularly regarding the status of the Fidelity Bank account. According to the defence, prosecution witnesses described the account as one associated with the National Security Coordinator's special operations rather than an ordinary public account.
The defence further argued that Exhibit 35 showed the account was opened in 2017 in the name of the National Security Coordinator and was not established in accordance with the Public Financial Management Act, 2016. The defence maintained that the account did not receive funds from public sources but rather deposits from private individuals, including Adu-Boahene and other persons.
The defence also questioned how the prosecution arrived at the alleged financial loss, pointing to figures contained in its own evidence. It said GH¢9.537 million was paid to ISC Holdings of Israel, GH¢7.2 million was transferred to the National Security Coordinator's account, GH¢2.347 million was returned to the Coordinator's account, while GH¢16 million was placed on fixed deposit.
On the authorisation of the three cheques, the lawyers pointed to the bank mandate, which identified the National Security Coordinator and other officials as joint signatories. They maintained that the cheques were signed in accordance with the bank mandate and that prosecution witnesses testified that the National Security Coordinator personally authorised and approved all three transactions.
The defence has also disputed the prosecution's allegation that the entire GH¢49.1 million was used for the benefit of the accused persons, their associates and family members. It argued that the prosecution's own figures accounted for payments to ISC Holdings and other suppliers, transfers to the National Security Coordinator's account, fixed deposits and withdrawals by National Security operatives for special operations.
Key points
- The defence challenges the prosecution's evidence, questioning the ownership of the disputed funds and the alleged forged documents.
- The prosecution alleges that the accused persons unlawfully obtained the GH¢49.1 million under the pretext of procuring a cyber-defence system.
- The defence argues that no audit report has been produced to establish a loss of GH¢49.1 million and that there is no complaint from the National Security apparatus regarding the alleged missing funds.
