Adu-Boahene Trial: Defence Presses EOCO Investigator Over GH¢49m Fund Diversion Probe

The trial of Kwabena Adu-Boahene, former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau, took a significant turn this week as his defence team intensified scrutiny of the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) investigation into the alleged diversion of GH¢49.1 million in public funds. During cross-examination at an Accra High Court, defence counsel Samuel Atta Akyea challenged the lead investigator's grasp of Ghana's national security architecture, raising questions about whether EOCO followed proper protocol before launching its investigation.

The Investigation's Foundation Under Fire

Frank Marshall Cromwell, EOCO's lead investigator and the fourth prosecution witness, acknowledged that the investigation began not with a formal complaint but from a tip-off about alleged fund diversion. This disclosure became central to the defence's challenge of the investigation's legitimacy. Atta Akyea questioned whether EOCO should have first reported the matter to the National Security establishment before commencing its own probe, given that the National Signals Bureau operates as an internal department of the National Security Council Secretariat.

The defence argued that Cromwell and his team lacked sufficient understanding of Ghana's national security structure when they initiated investigations. Evidence emerged that investigators had initially sought salary records from the National Security Council rather than the National Signals Bureau itself, suggesting procedural confusion. Cromwell defended this approach, stating that requests were appropriately directed to the NSC because it held the relevant employment records.

The Fund Transfer Dispute and Signing Authority

A critical line of questioning focused on the bank account mandate and who had authority to approve expenditures. Atta Akyea contended that Adu-Boahene acted under the National Security Coordinator's authority and could not independently authorise spending. The defence highlighted that all three cheques totalling GH¢49.1 million bore signatures from both the Coordinator and Adu-Boahene, suggesting joint decision-making rather than unilateral action by the accused.

Cromwell confirmed EOCO's finding that GH¢49.1 million was transferred from the Bureau of National Communications account to a private account, but the defence raised questions about the investigative conclusions. Notably, the witness acknowledged that part of the funds were moved to UMB Bank ostensibly for foreign exchange trading opportunities—a detail that could suggest legitimate business rationale rather than criminal intent.

However, investigators discovered that Adu-Boahene initially transferred GH¢7.25 million into his personal account, then returned GH¢7.2 million to the National Security Coordinator's account whilst retaining GH¢50,000. The defence sought to undermine the sinister interpretation of these transactions, noting that the GH¢7.2 million was returned only after the bank contacted the Coordinator about mitigating potential losses—suggesting reactive rather than fraudulent behaviour.

Why It Matters for Ghana

This trial reflects broader concerns about accountability within Ghana's security and intelligence apparatus. The case highlights tensions between investigating public fund misuse and respecting the institutional protocols governing sensitive national security agencies. For Ghana's governance, the outcome will signal how rigorously the state investigates financial impropriety at the highest levels, and whether investigative agencies must navigate complex hierarchies before pursuing such cases.

The defence's successful challenge to the investigator's understanding of institutional structure also raises questions about inter-agency coordination and whether EOCO followed appropriate procedures. If the defence successfully argues that proper protocols were not followed, it could set precedent for how future investigations of national security agencies are conducted. The trial also reflects public interest in ensuring that intelligence agencies operate transparently and are held accountable to the same standards as other government institutions.

The proceedings resume on Wednesday, 15 July 2026, with further cross-examination of the EOCO investigator expected to continue.