Court rejects AG’s attempts to ‘disguise’ BNC cheque payments as Adu Boahene’s private transactions
An Accra High Court has dismissed what the defence described as attempts by the Attorney-General’s office to “disguise cheque payments as private transactions” in the ongoing trial of former Director-General of the NSB, Kwabena Adu-Boahene, after a heated cross-examination that exposed conflicting interpretations of financial records and electronic communications.
The ruling came during cross-examination of the Attorney-General’s key witness, Edith Ruby Opokua Adumuah, Head of Finance at the National Signals Bureau, by defence counsel Samuel Atta Akyea at the Criminal Court 3 of the Accra High Court.
The defence maintained that a series of cheque payments and withdrawals captured in bank statements were strictly linked to National Security operational activities and not personal transactions of the accused or any individual officers involved.
When asked whether cash withdrawals reflected in bank statements were for private use, the prosecution witness Edith Ruby Opokua Adumuah firmly responded that they were not for private use, confirming that they were executed for operational purposes within National Security.
She told that several senior officials, including Joshua Kyeremeh, Cletus Sogovi, Seth Danso, and Kofi Sarpong Dansu Otchere, had made significant withdrawals from a Coordinator’s account at Fidelity Bank over different periods. The witness confirmed the amounts and the transactions as presented in Exhibit 5C.
Disputes also arose over a UMB Bank account referred to by the defence as the “BNC Operations Account” which the prosecution challenged as a mischaracterisation. Despite objections, the court allowed portions of the evidence to be presented after the defence laid foundation and tendered Exhibit 9, which the witness acknowledged as the BNC Operations account at the UMB Bank, into which two cheques of GH₵1 million and GH₵21 million were deposited.
A central point of contention was the prosecution’s attempt to distance cheque payments from operational context, which the defence argued was inconsistent with documentary and electronic evidence already before the court.
The defence further sought to rely on WhatsApp communications between the witness and the accused to demonstrate that financial requests were routinely made and executed for operational needs. The prosecution objected, challenging the authenticity and admissibility of the messages.
In a ruling, however, the trial judge admitted one of the WhatsApp exchanges into evidence, holding that the witness had confirmed under cross-examination that she sent the message and that her phone number was identifiable, satisfying requirements under the Electronic Transactions Act, 2008. The court ruled that the defence had laid sufficient foundation for the document’s admission.
The admitted message referenced arrangements for cash disbursements for official purposes, including fuel support for a minister’s trips. The witness acknowledged sending the message but stated she could not recall the exact date.
Other attempts by the defence to tender additional WhatsApp messages were rejected after the prosecution’s objected on relevance grounds, marking a mixed outcome in the evidentiary contest.
Throughout the cross-examination, the witness maintained that multiple financial requests and withdrawals were tied to operational needs, though she frequently indicated she could not recall specific details when pressed on dates and figures.
The defence also suggested that withdrawals from UMB Bank accounts were consistent with operational expenditures, a position the witness partially accepted, stating that she collected monies for office expenditure but could not confirm every transaction’s purpose.
The presiding judge adjourned proceedings to April 27, 28, and 29, 2026, for continuation of the cross examination.
