Adu-Boahene case: Atta Akyea exposes inconsistencies in AG Witness’s EOCO testimony
The Attorney-General’s prosecution witness, Edith Ruby Opokua Adumuah, Head of Finance at the National Signals Bureau (NSB), came under intense scrutiny at the High Court (General Jurisdiction 10) during cross-examination in the ongoing trial of Mr. Kwabena Adu-Boahene, former Director of the NSB, and two others. The defence, led by Samuel Atta Akyea Esq., questioned the witness on her role in the EOCO investigations, exposing discrepancies in her testimony regarding authorisation letters, EOCO statements, and her authority to represent the NSB. The Deputy Attorney-General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, appeared alongside counsel Esi Yankah and Rabiatu Abdulai for the State.
The Cross-Examination
During cross-examination on Tuesday, December 9, 2025, Mr. Atta Akyea sought to establish whether Madam Adumuah had complied with the court’s directive to produce letters authorising her participation in EOCO investigations and her testimony in court.
The witness indicated she had brought the required document. The presiding judge then instructed that the document be produced directly by the witness instead of the prosecution, prompting an apology from the Deputy Attorney-General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai. A brief recess was taken so the prosecution could make copies.
Defence Challenges Timing and Authority of Exhibit 1
When proceedings resumed, Mr. Atta Akyea directed the witness to Exhibit 1, a letter previously tendered in evidence. He asked her to confirm that the document was not authored by the Minister of National Security, to which she agreed. Counsel further suggested that Exhibit 1 was written after she had already submitted all her statements to EOCO.
The witness responded that she could not recall the timeline, explaining that she acted under the instructions of the NSB Director-General, who in turn took directions from the National Security Coordinator. When asked to recall her last EOCO statement, she replied that she did not remember, until she was shown a document dated 9 May 2025.
The prosecution announced that additional EOCO statements had been filed and tendered them without objection from either side.
Witness Confirms EOCO Caution and Acknowledges Right to Counsel
Attention quickly shifted to Exhibits 2 and 3, both EOCO statements signed by the witness. The defence confirmed that she had signed a statement dated 1 May 2025 acknowledging investigations into financial loss to the state, tax fraud and money laundering. She also confirmed being reminded of her right to legal counsel during the EOCO engagement.
This triggered a tense moment when Mr. Atta Akyea demanded the name of the lawyer who represented her during the interrogation. The Deputy Attorney-General objected, arguing that the witness was entitled to privacy regarding her choice of counsel. The defence countered that attorney–client privilege concerns only the substance of communication, not the identity of the lawyer.
The judge, John Eugene Nyante Nyadu, overruled the objection, clarifying that privilege attaches to confidential communications rather than the name of counsel. The witness then named her lawyer as Rosenberg Owusu.
Court Confronts Question of Whether Witness Was a Suspect
The exchanges deepened when the defence asked whether she was under investigations at the time she signed Exhibit 3. The witness insisted she did not know. When the defence asked whether her lawyer was present at the time, the judge interjected with an analogy, but Mr. Atta Akyea maintained that the nature of a caution statement implies that it is given by a suspect who has been advised of their right to remain silent.
The Deputy Attorney-General criticised the line of questioning, but the judge ordered him to withdraw the comment. The defence repeated its position that the presence of legal counsel and the wording of the caution statement indicated that the witness was under criminal investigation. The witness explained that she went to EOCO upon the instruction of her boss and chose to bring a lawyer, but was unsure whether that changed anything.
EOCO’s Interest in Witness’s Private Properties Revisited
In a later line of questioning, Mr. Atta Akyea suggested that on 29 March 2023, when she signed Exhibit 3, she was not acting in any official capacity for the NSB. The witness insisted she had been cleared for the assignment.
Counsel then asked whether her private properties were under investigation by EOCO. The witness denied this. However, she admitted when reminded by the defence that she had earlier shown her private properties to EOCO officials during the course of inquiries.
The courtroom grew even more charged when the presiding judge questioned the direction of Mr. Atta Akyea’s line of inquiry, asking where certain questions were coming from as the defence continued to scrutinise the basis of the witness’s involvement in the EOCO investigation.
Responding to questions about standard investigative procedures, Madam Adumuah stated that she assumed EOCO, like other investigative bodies, followed established practices. She noted that her understanding was based on what she believed to be the usual protocol employed by such agencies.
The defence subsequently put it to her that National Security never hired a lawyer on her behalf. The witness agreed, asserting that no such arrangement had been made.
This led to a renewed focus on Exhibit 1, the authorisation letter dated 15 July 2025. Mr. Atta Akyea argued that the letter was issued at a time when she had not been charged and while the trial was already underway. The witness maintained that she had never been charged and insisted that her appearance in the matter was strictly under the instructions of her superiors.
The Deputy Attorney-General intervened, objecting strongly to what he described as an attempt by the defence to create a misleading impression that the witness first obtained authorisation to deal with EOCO only in July 2025. He reminded the court that the witness had previously said she held two documents: an earlier approval dated 25 March 2025, and the 15 July 2025 letter. He cautioned that comparing Exhibit 1 to a document that had not been tendered risked misleading the court.
Mr. Atta Akyea fired back, describing the prosecution’s comments as a subtle and unprofessional attempt to coach the witness by suggesting answers, insisting the witness was not confused by his questioning. The Attorney-General demanded the withdrawal of the word “unprofessional”.
The judge reiterated earlier guidance to the witness to answer questions directly before offering explanations. After clarifying issues surrounding permissions required for public servants, the court overruled the AG’s objection.
Controversy Over an Untendered Memo
The defence pressed the witness on her claim that she possessed two letters. She explained that one was an authorisation letter while the other was a memo permitting her to cooperate with EOCO. Mr. Atta Akyea challenged her, arguing that she had never informed the court about any memo. The witness insisted she had been instructed to show it but not tender it.
When counsel asked her to specify the date of the memo, the AG objected on grounds that the document had not been admitted into evidence. The defence countered that the witness herself introduced the memo and should therefore be able to speak to its date. The judge ultimately withheld the objection.
After a two-hour break, Mr. Atta Akyea announced that he had no intention of tendering the memo, prompting further clarifications from the bench. The AG suggested marking the memo for identification, but the judge stressed that only tendered documents could be admitted.
NSB Status and Mandate Examined
The defence then turned to the question of whether the witness legitimately represented the National Signals Bureau. Madam Adumuah explained that the Bureau of National Communications had transitioned into the NSB following the enactment of the 2020 security legislation.
However, Mr. Atta Akyea argued that based on her own testimony, she could not have been presented as the representative of NSB. The witness disagreed. When asked whether the NSB had ever filed a complaint to EOCO in the matter, she stated that she did not know the origins of the investigation and only acted upon instructions from her boss.
Counsel suggested that she could not rely on Exhibit 1 to speak for NSB. The witness dismissed the assertion as an opinion.
The defence also questioned her understanding of the distinction between the NSB and the National Security Council Secretariat. She acknowledged the difference but insisted that the NSB evolved from structures overseen by the National Security Coordinator.
Mr. Atta Akyea then argued that she had produced no documentation authorising her to testify on behalf of the National Security Council Secretariat. The witness responded that she took instructions from her Director-General and would not necessarily be privy to letters issued at higher levels.
Witness Stands Her Ground on Oaths and Instructions
The defence further suggested that she was attributing decisions to the National Security Coordinator without knowledge. The witness disagreed, stating that she acted according to oaths she had sworn, allegiance, secrecy, and office, and that she would not have appeared in court without proper authorisation.
The defence warned that all three oaths carried consequences, to which the witness acknowledged that she was aware.
When questioned about the statutory frameworks governing the NSB and security services, the witness confirmed her familiarity with the relevant acts. Counsel then suggested that under these laws, no official, including her superior, had the authority to permit her to breach her oaths. The judge intervened, expressing uncertainty about the relevance of that direction of questioning, but the defence persisted. The witness disagreed, maintaining that proper processes had been followed.
*Questions on Documents Submitted to EOCO
Attention shifted to the documents she submitted to EOCO. The witness said all documents were delivered through the Director-General, and she simply forwarded them. When asked to catalogue them, she said she could not provide a chronological list.
Counsel then asked which documents she had submitted to EOCO that had later been filed in court. The AG objected, describing the line of questioning as a fishing expedition that had become a recurring feature of the cross-examination.
Mr. Atta Akyea rejected the objection, asserting that cross-examination allows counsel to test a witness’s truthfulness and credibility. He argued that if the AG found cross-examination uncomfortable, the witness should be withdrawn. The judge overruled the objection.
When the question was put again, the witness stated that she did not know which of the documents had been filed.
Mr. Atta Akyea then indicated that he had no further questions for the witness.
The judge adjourned the suit to 10 December at 1:00 p.m.
