The State’s case against Adu Boahene is built on weak evidence; Deputy AG’s belief in securing conviction is ill conceived and political — Lawyer Kwesi Botchway Jnr

Private legal practitioner, Lawyer Kwesi Botchway Jnr, has mounted a strong legal challenge against the state’s prosecution of former Director General of the National Signals Bureau (NSB), Kwabena Adu Boahene. He has, therefore, argued that the prosecution’s case is riddled with inconsistencies, evidentiary gaps and contradictions that could ultimately lead to an acquittal.

His comments come in response to growing confidence expressed by some government officials, including the Deputy Attorney General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, over the possibility of securing a conviction against Adu Boahene and other accused persons standing trial over the alleged diversion of GH¢49.1 million earmarked for a cyber defence procurement project.

In a detailed legal analysis titled “Shocking Revelations Why Kwabena Adu Boahene Will Walk Free,” the legal practitioner stated that despite the gravity of the allegations and the public attention surrounding the matter, the state has so far failed to present what he describes as a coherent and legally sustainable criminal case capable of meeting the high threshold required for conviction in criminal proceedings.

Lawyer Kwesi Botchway Jnr argued that public outrage, political commentary and media narratives cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.

“The state may have a politically explosive case, but winning in court is a different matter entirely as the court deals with material evidence, facts and a coherent story,” he stated.

The lawyer stressed that under Ghana’s criminal justice system, the burden of proof lies entirely on the prosecution and never shifts to the accused person unless expressly provided by law.

Citing Article 19(2) of the 1992 Constitution, he noted that every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, adding that Adu Boahene has no obligation to prove his innocence before the court.

He further referenced the celebrated English case of Woolmington v DPP, where Lord Sankey held that “it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the accused’s guilt,” describing it as one of the foundational principles of criminal jurisprudence in common law jurisdictions including Ghana.

Lawyer Botchway Jnr also relied on Miller v Minister of Pensions and Bakare v The State to reinforce his argument that criminal convictions can only be secured where evidence leaves no reasonable uncertainty regarding the guilt of the accused.

According to him, one of the most damaging setbacks confronting the prosecution is the testimony of its own key witness, Edith Ruby Opokua Adumuah, Head of Finance at the National Signals Bureau.

While the Attorney General had publicly framed the GH¢49.1 million transaction as fraudulent and linked it to an undelivered cyber defence system, the witness testified that the payments in question were “genuine special operations transactions” which she personally authorised after delivery and acceptance procedures had been completed.

Lawyer Botchway Jnr contended that such testimony fundamentally weakens the prosecution’s public narrative and introduces substantial doubt regarding whether the transactions were criminal in nature.

He further pointed to another major inconsistency involving the alleged disappearance of the funds.

According to him, under cross examination, the prosecution witness admitted that she was unaware of any theft or missing funds within the National Security apparatus and had never reported any such loss to the Auditor General, EOCO, the police or even her superiors.

He argued that this creates what he termed “a serious evidentiary problem” for the prosecution because the institution at the centre of the controversy itself did not initially treat the transactions as theft.

The legal practitioner also questioned the prosecution’s characterisation of certain accounts as personal accounts belonging to Adu Boahene.

He stated that defence lawyers had established during cross examination that some of the disputed accounts were operational National Security accounts used for special operations and not ordinary personal accounts as publicly portrayed.

He noted that the prosecution witness admitted in court that the National Security Coordinator had authority to open special purpose accounts and designate signatories for operational activities.

“She also testified that she personally transacted on the account several times. She told the court that she personally paid two of the three disputed cheques into the said account and also withdrew several sums of money from the account,” he stated.

Lawyer Botchway Jnr argued that if the court accepts this explanation, the prosecution’s attempt to portray the movement of funds as inherently suspicious may collapse.

He also drew attention to discrepancies surrounding the Attorney General’s public claim that GH¢49.1 million was equivalent to seven million dollars.

According to him, the prosecution witness admitted during testimony that at the prevailing 2020 exchange rates, the amount did not correspond exactly to seven million dollars as had earlier been claimed publicly.

Though seemingly technical, he argued that such inconsistencies matter greatly in financial crime prosecutions where precise tracing and accounting of funds are critical to proving criminal intent.

The lawyer further argued that the prosecution’s reliance on the optics of large cash withdrawals and money allegedly carried in “Ghana Must Go” bags may not necessarily prove criminality.

He explained that the witness reportedly testified that such operational cash movements were routine within National Security operations and did not automatically imply theft or diversion of state funds.

According to him, the admission of WhatsApp conversations between Adu Boahene and the prosecution witness into evidence further complicates the state’s case because portions of the messages allegedly linked some of the disputed withdrawals and transfers to operational requests, logistics and field expenses connected to national security work.

He maintained that these developments support the defence argument that the prosecution may have selectively interpreted transactions while ignoring evidence suggesting official operational purposes.

Lawyer Botchway Jnr also questioned the state’s assertion that the cyber defence system at the centre of the controversy was never procured.

He stated that the Head of Finance reportedly testified that she personally approved payment for the defence system upon confirmation of delivery to National Security.

According to the witness, only the Israeli vendor, ISC Holdings, and top National Security officials would be in a position to determine whether the equipment remains in the custody of the state.

Another issue raised by the lawyer relates to the actual source of the GH¢49.1 million.

He noted that the witness testified that all government funds released to National Security passed through the Ghana Integrated Financial Management Information System and were lodged into official Bank of Ghana accounts.

However, she reportedly stated that the Coordinator’s special purpose accounts at Fidelity Bank never received public funds processed through GIFMIS and that the disputed GH¢49.1 million was not part of the budget she prepared for the year 2020.

According to Lawyer Botchway Jnr, this testimony raises fundamental legal questions regarding whether the money in dispute can even be classified as public funds belonging to the state.

He maintained that although the contradictions identified do not automatically establish innocence, they significantly strengthen the defence by introducing reasonable doubt into the prosecution’s narrative.

“In criminal law, especially in complex financial crime cases, prosecutors must present a consistent, coherent and unambiguous narrative,” he stressed.

He added that once prosecution witnesses begin validating operational explanations, denying knowledge of theft, acknowledging authorised procedures and disputing financial equivalence claims, the prosecution risks appearing more politically motivated than legally convincing.

Lawyer Botchway Jnr further argued that the state has so far failed to present documentary evidence proving the true purpose of the alleged stolen funds, any official confirmation from the National Security Coordinator that the cyber defence system was never delivered, or land title documents showing that the accused persons acquired properties with proceeds of crime.

“Unless the prosecution can conclusively prove unlawful enrichment and criminal intent beyond reasonable doubt, the court could acquit him,” he stated.

He further believes, legally, that Adu Boahene may ultimately walk free not because the allegations are insignificant, but because criminal trials require exceptionally high evidentiary standards which, in his view, the prosecution has yet to satisfy.