An attempt by lawyers for former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau, Kwabena Adu-Boahene, to tender two sets of documents — an email communication transcript and pension payment receipts — was rejected.
Mildred Donkor, a third prosecution witness in the ongoing trial of Adu-Boahene and his wife, was under further cross-examination by Samuel Atta Akyea when she answered questions relating to pension payments and email correspondence.
The attempt to tender the documents was met with a strong objection from the prosecution, led by Deputy Attorney General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai.
The charges relate to the alleged misappropriation of GJc49.1M State funds for procuring a cyber defence system for the Republic.
The couple, together with Advantage Solutions Limited, have been charged with 11 counts in total.
The counts, which fall under seven main charges, are: four counts of stealing, defrauding by false pretence, willfully causing financial loss, using public office for profit, collusion to commit crime (against the wife), obtaining public property by false statements, money laundering, and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
On Tuesday, May 12, 2026, during further cross-examination, defence lawyers sought to tender email communications with an Petra, anInsurance Company.
But, The Deputy AG objected to the tendering of the documents. His objection was based on relevance, particularly because the documents do not address the substance of the charges against the accused persons.
Dr. Srem-Sai submitted that the documents appeared to be communications between the witness and a staff of the said insurance company.
According to the Deputy AG, the communications took place in August 2024, nearly four years after the transaction for which the accused person is standing trial.
He argued that there was no obvious connection between the email communications and the issues before the court, and therefore prayed that the documents be rejected.
Lead Counsel for the accused, Samuel Atta Akyea, urged the court to overrule the objection and referred the court to the summary of accompanying facts filed before it.
Referring specifically to paragraph 13, he stated that the accused “ran an elaborate criminal enterprise using A3 through which the stolen funds were laundered.”
In light of that, counsel argued that the documents they were tendering were meant to show that A3 is a legitimate company and not a criminal enterprise.
He added that the prosecution’s own witness had stated that the emails to Petra insurance company were put together by her.
Counsel said they owed it a duty to the accused persons to put their case through PW3 (3rd Prosecution Witness), who, at all material times, was a director of A3.
He asked how such consequential material could not be relevant, having regard to the prosecution’s own charge sheet and statement of facts.
Justice Francis Apangabonu Achibonga, a Justice of the Court of Appeal presiding as an additional High Court judge, ruled sustained the objection and rejected the documents.
“Looking at the documents sought to be tendered — email correspondence between the witness herein and one Naa Afia in respect of pension payments for the employees of the third accused (Advantage Solutions Limited), with the certificate of incorporation of the third accused attached — I do not see the relevance of the emails in light of the charges preferred against the accused persons.”
The documents were accordingly rejected.
SSNIT/Pension Payments
On his objection to the relevance of the SSNIT pension payments, the Deputy AG submitted that the document dealt with payments for 2024, had no relationship with the charges, which relate to actions from four years ago.
He argued that the SSNIT or pension payments were not an answer to any of the charges, and again, the witness was not the maker of the documents.
Counsel for the accused said a rejection might cause a mistrial, adding that it is settled jurisprudence that accused persons can use prosecution witnesses to project their innocence and undermine the prosecution’s case.
“It will be a travesty of justice for the court to close its eyes to the obvious,” he said.
On this objection, the court said it did not see the relevance of the monthly salaries and pensions of the staff of the company.
The objection was upheld, and the evidence was rejected.
Sitting continues on Wednesday, May 13, 2026 for further cross examination.
End
Mildred Donkor, a third prosecution witness in the ongoing trial of Adu-Boahene and his wife, was under further cross-examination by Samuel Atta Akyea when she answered questions relating to pension payments and email correspondence.
The attempt to tender the documents was met with a strong objection from the prosecution, led by Deputy Attorney General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai.
The charges relate to the alleged misappropriation of GJc49.1M State funds for procuring a cyber defence system for the Republic.
The couple, together with Advantage Solutions Limited, have been charged with 11 counts in total.
The counts, which fall under seven main charges, are: four counts of stealing, defrauding by false pretence, willfully causing financial loss, using public office for profit, collusion to commit crime (against the wife), obtaining public property by false statements, money laundering, and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
On Tuesday, May 12, 2026, during further cross-examination, defence lawyers sought to tender email communications with an Petra, anInsurance Company.
But, The Deputy AG objected to the tendering of the documents. His objection was based on relevance, particularly because the documents do not address the substance of the charges against the accused persons.
Dr. Srem-Sai submitted that the documents appeared to be communications between the witness and a staff of the said insurance company.
According to the Deputy AG, the communications took place in August 2024, nearly four years after the transaction for which the accused person is standing trial.
He argued that there was no obvious connection between the email communications and the issues before the court, and therefore prayed that the documents be rejected.
Lead Counsel for the accused, Samuel Atta Akyea, urged the court to overrule the objection and referred the court to the summary of accompanying facts filed before it.
Referring specifically to paragraph 13, he stated that the accused “ran an elaborate criminal enterprise using A3 through which the stolen funds were laundered.”
In light of that, counsel argued that the documents they were tendering were meant to show that A3 is a legitimate company and not a criminal enterprise.
He added that the prosecution’s own witness had stated that the emails to Petra insurance company were put together by her.
Counsel said they owed it a duty to the accused persons to put their case through PW3 (3rd Prosecution Witness), who, at all material times, was a director of A3.
He asked how such consequential material could not be relevant, having regard to the prosecution’s own charge sheet and statement of facts.
Justice Francis Apangabonu Achibonga, a Justice of the Court of Appeal presiding as an additional High Court judge, ruled sustained the objection and rejected the documents.
“Looking at the documents sought to be tendered — email correspondence between the witness herein and one Naa Afia in respect of pension payments for the employees of the third accused (Advantage Solutions Limited), with the certificate of incorporation of the third accused attached — I do not see the relevance of the emails in light of the charges preferred against the accused persons.”
The documents were accordingly rejected.
SSNIT/Pension Payments
On his objection to the relevance of the SSNIT pension payments, the Deputy AG submitted that the document dealt with payments for 2024, had no relationship with the charges, which relate to actions from four years ago.
He argued that the SSNIT or pension payments were not an answer to any of the charges, and again, the witness was not the maker of the documents.
Counsel for the accused said a rejection might cause a mistrial, adding that it is settled jurisprudence that accused persons can use prosecution witnesses to project their innocence and undermine the prosecution’s case.
“It will be a travesty of justice for the court to close its eyes to the obvious,” he said.
On this objection, the court said it did not see the relevance of the monthly salaries and pensions of the staff of the company.
The objection was upheld, and the evidence was rejected.
Sitting continues on Wednesday, May 13, 2026 for further cross examination.
End
