Adu boahene trial: Eoco investigator admits there was no complainant; no engagement with national security officials

The trial of former National Signals Bureau Director-General, Kwabena Adu Boahene, took another significant turn as the prosecution’s fourth witness (PW4), EOCO investigator Frank Marshall Cromwell, made a series of admissions under cross-examination that raised questions about the scope and depth of the investigation.

Under intense cross examination, the prosecution’s investigator admitted to the court that there was no identifiable complainant whose complaint triggered the investigation into the alleged offences. The admission comes against the backdrop of the prosecution’s case alleging the theft and misappropriation of GH¢49.1 million.

The witness further admitted that, despite the allegations involving funds said to have been allocated for national security operations, he did not engage officials of the National Security Secretariat or other relevant national security institutions to ascertain the purpose, authorization, or operational context of the transactions under investigation.

This testimony by EOCO’s investigator weakens the case of the prosecution because PW3 Edith Ruby Adumuah (head of finance, NSB) had previously testified that, no monies went missing within her institution and that if any such monies had gone missing, she would have detected and reported. She added that at the material year of 2020 the department’s budget was GH¢ 13.9 million making it impossible for anyone to steal GH¢ 49.1 million.
She further told the court that, there has been no internal queries, audit findings or reports regarding any missing funds.

The admissions cast a dent on the prosecution’s theory because the prosecution’s case revolves around funds said to have been allocated for national security purposes. Without engaging the officials responsible for the administration and oversight of those operations, questions may arise as to whether investigators sought all potentially relevant information before preferring charges.

During cross-examination, defence counsel highlighted the absence of consultations with key national security officials, suggesting that the investigation was conducted without obtaining the institutional perspective on the transactions at the heart of the case.

PW4 told the court that he did not interview or seek clarification from officials within the National Security establishment regarding the operational purpose of the funds.

These admissions add to other evidence that has emerged during the prosecution’s case and which the defence has relied upon in its cross-examinations. Earlier witnesses acknowledged that portions of the disputed funds were used for national security operations. The prosecution also previously disclosed, in response to orders of the Court of Appeal, that it did not possess certain documents relating to the source and purpose of the funds and other national security records sought by the defence. In addition, earlier testimony included admissions that multiple officials had transacted on the accounts the prosecution described as private accounts of the accused persons, while other aspects of the prosecution’s public narrative have been challenged during cross-examination.

Taken together, these developments are likely to form a central part of arguments that the prosecution’s investigation was incomplete and that important lines of inquiry were not pursued before charges were filed. The prosecution, however, is yet to close its case, and the trial continues before the High Court.