Exclusive: Content of Atta Akyea’s Prohibition Application dismissed by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has thrown out the prohibition application filed by lawyer Samuel Atta Akyea on behalf of his client, Kwabena Adu-Boahene, in a bid to prevent Justice John Eugene Nyante Nyadu from continuing to preside over their ongoing criminal trial.

In a unanimous decision on Wednesday, October 29, 2025, a five-member panel of the apex court presided over by Justice Avril Lovelace Johnson dismissed the application on grounds that it lacked merit and failed to meet the legal threshold required to prohibit a sitting judge.

The motion, brought under the Supreme Court’s supervisory jurisdiction, sought to restrain the High Court judge from continuing with the case on grounds of alleged bias, prejudgment, and unfair treatment.

Grounds of the prohibition application

On October 22, 2025, Adu-Boahene, through his lawyer, Samuel Atta Akyea, invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in a bid to prohibit the judge from hearing the case. In their Notice of Motion, the applicants outline four principal grounds for seeking the prohibition. They contend that:

“His Lordship is caught in a continuing operative bias demonstrated in his prejudgment and/or predetermination of the critical issues of the essence and import of exculpatory evidence in aid of fair trial as spelt out in Article 19 of the Constitution and judicially pronounced upon in the Supreme Court case of Republic v Baffoe-Bonnie & 4 Others [2017–2021] 1 SCGLR 327.”

The applicants further allege that Justice Nyadu’s posture has created a “real likelihood of bias”, especially after he “judicially predetermined that the exculpatory evidence are not relevant to the case and the defence of the accused persons.” They also accuse the Attorney-General of “stampeding” the trial judge, stating that:

“The Attorney-General’s stampeding of His Lordship, John Eugene Nyante Nyadu, J., relating to his time in delivering his own decisions and deferring to the Attorney-General’s time dictates is real likelihood of bias against the Applicants.” Additionally, they question what they describe as the judge’s “special extrajudicial interest” in the matter, arguing that his decision to sit on the case from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. indicates partiality.

Affidavit detailing the sequence of events

In a 40-paragraph affidavit, sworn by Kwabena Adu-Boahene, the applicants provide a detailed chronology of what they describe as irregularities, procedural violations, and instances of judicial bias.

Mr. Adu-Boahene recounts that on April 30, 2025, he, together with his co-accused and their lawyers, was “invited to meet officials of EOCO at 2:00 p.m.” but was “bundled into [an] EOCO vehicle amidst serious protestations from our lawyers.” He claims they were “driven to the Court premises and ushered into the High Court, General Jurisdiction ‘10’, with our lawyers following”, only to find Attorney-General Dominic Ayine and his deputy, Dr. Justice Srem Sai, already in the courtroom.

“Our lawyers could not come to terms with this ambush practice given the fact that they were not officially dressed for court. This event was around 4:30 p.m.,” Adu-Boahene stated in paragraph 10 of his affidavit. He adds that a charge sheet and accompanying facts were served on their lawyers “right in the courtroom”, hours after being filed by the Attorney-General, contrary to established procedure.

“It is clear that His Lordship condoned this violation of our rights and the law,” the affidavit stated. The applicants also cite several portions of the judge’s written rulings to support their claim of bias, describing them as clear indicators that the trial judge had “closed his mind” on critical matters.

For instance, in Exhibit KAA 7, Justice Nyadu is quoted as stating: “Their request for further disclosure at this stage therefore, appears to me to be an attempt to stall the progression of proceedings towards commencement of the trial.”

In another section of the ruling, the judge observed: “In the case of the missing pages of Exhibit ‘C’, this court finds same to constitute an abuse of the opportunity for further disclosures…” The applicants argue that such language shows prejudgment and a disregard for their right to a fair trial as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution.

The affidavit further alleges that the Attorney-General and his deputy have been exerting undue influence on the trial process. It recounts, for example, that after the Deputy Attorney-General “cajoled” the judge to abridge the date for his ruling, Justice Nyadu “did the Deputy Attorney-General’s bidding” and rescheduled his own decision from July 21 to July 3, 2025. “His Lordship did not deliver the reasoned ruling. He merely pronounced that the application is dismissed,” the affidavit states, adding that the judge later asked the parties to “fetch a reasoned decision on Monday.”

The applicants maintain that such instances illustrate the Attorney-General’s overbearing influence on the proceedings. The applicants also point to the judge’s decision to sit on the case every Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., and later adding Thursdays, as an indication of what they call “special extrajudicial interest.”

“The special interest which His Lordship, sitting as a judge of the General Jurisdiction, is giving to this criminal case brings us to the conclusion that he cannot be an impartial arbiter,” Adu-Boahene argued.

No “State BNC” Account

In all these, the facts are now clear, verified, and irrefutable: there is no such thing as a “State BNC” account. What has for months been presented to Ghanaians by the Attorney General’s Office and the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) as a state account connected to the ongoing case involving Kwabena Adu-Boahene seems to be a serious misrepresentation of the truth.

Documents, checkbooks, and account details that have since been examined and verified show that the account in question is not a “State BNC” account, but rather the National Security Coordinator’s Special Operations Account, an officially sanctioned account used for sensitive operational purposes within the National Security Secretariat.

The verified checkbook, sourced from Fidelity Bank, bears the inscription “Director BNC” and carries an account number ending in 849. Crucially, this account corresponds exactly to what is identified internally as the Coordinator’s Account (NSC) — meaning the National Security Council. The labeling of “Director BNC” was not a reflection of ownership or control by the Bureau’s Director but a security decoy designed to obscure the operational identity of the account.

This practice, as confirmed by National Security sources familiar with intelligence operations, is consistent with long-established security protocols where account names and identifiers are masked to protect operational confidentiality. Simply put, the “Director BNC” label was an administrative disguise a shield, not a signature.

Therefore, the claim repeatedly put forward by the Attorney General and EOCO that public funds were lodged in or misapplied from a “State BNC” account linked to a private interest is demonstrably false. The verified evidence shows that the account belongs to the National Security Coordinator, not to any individual officer. In fact, as the documents indicate, no transaction from that account could occur without proper authorization from the Coordinator’s office.

Even more telling is the fact that, to date, the National Security Secretariat has not reported any missing funds. No complaint has been lodged, no audit discrepancy cited, and no evidence exists of money being siphoned or diverted. Every relevant record, from account statements to authorizing memos, remains intact within the Secretariat and aligns with standard government accounting procedures.

The verified evidence now in the public domain exposes a serious lapse in due diligence on the part of state investigators and prosecutors. EOCO, in particular, appears to have built its conclusions on assumptions drawn from the labeling of the checkbook, without undertaking the necessary verification to confirm the actual account name and ownership. This basic oversight has not only misled the public but also cast a shadow over the credibility of an entire case.

It is deeply concerning that such a critical misrepresentation could find its way into official narratives and courtroom arguments without proper fact-checking. The damage is twofold, first, it undermines the rights and reputations of those implicated; second, it erodes public confidence in the competence and fairness of Ghana’s justice system.

The Attorney General’s Department and EOCO owe the nation a public clarification. When verified documents expose the falsity of a state narrative, silence is not an option. Accountability demands acknowledgment of error and a transparent correction of the record. Anything less would be a betrayal of the public trust and a stain on Ghana’s commitment to justice and the rule of law.

The “State BNC” saga is no longer a matter of speculation, it is a verified falsehood. The truth, supported by documentary evidence, reveals that the so-called “State BNC” account was never a state fund diverted for personal gain, but a secured operational account of the National Security Coordinator.

Cyber defence system fully delivered and operational

But new developments also suggest that prior claims by the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Dr. Dominic Ayine, regarding the non-delivery of a cyber defence system is inaccurate.

In court, Dr. Ayine had stated: “Further investigations have revealed that no cybersecurity system of the description in the January 30, 2020, contract was ever received by the Bureau of National Communications or by its successor agency the National Signals Bureau or by the Government of Ghana. An inventory confirmation from the National Security Secretariat shows that the equipment was never received into stores as is the practice in the public services.”

However, International Security Consulting Holding Ltd. (I.S.C HOLDING Ltd.), the Israeli-based company contracted to supply the system, has officially responded to these claims in a letter addressed to Samuel Atta Akyea, Esq., lead counsel to Mr. Adu-Boahene, dated May 28, 2025. The company stated that all cyber defence systems procured by the NSB under the confidential January 30, 2020 agreement were, in fact, fully delivered to Ghana’s National Security as contracted.

The correspondence reads in part: “We hereby declare and for the avoidance of any doubt that: all Cyber defence systems, procured by the NSB, supplied under a confidential agreement signed on January 30th 2020, with an associated continuing service covenant, were fully delivered to Ghana’s National security.”

I.S.C HOLDING Ltd., which specializes in high-level security consultancy and has provided services to multiple governments and intelligence agencies worldwide, also emphasised its readiness for clarifications or formal engagements with Ghanaian authorities to verify the delivery and operational status of the system.

In the correspondence, ISC Holdings touted the credibility of its operations, noting: “Our consultants are seasoned professionals with extensive experience acquired through years of service in the Israeli Security Agency, and through international assignments supporting governmental, defense institutes, and intelligence agencies.”

The letter also stressed that the confirmation specifically pertains to the tenure of Mr. Adu-Boahene as Director-General of the National Signal Bureau.

“First, we take this opportunity to emphasize that our response refers to Mr. Kwabena Adu-Boahene during his duty as Director-general of the National Signal Bureau,” the I.S.C Holding Ltd letter clarified.

It further reaffirmed the company’s reputation for delivering “confidential, cutting-edge security solutions” and pledged cooperation with any formal engagements deemed necessary by counsel.