Atta Akyea Firmly Denies Abandoning NSB Chief Adu-Boahene's Defence Amid Court Battle

Lawyer Samuel Atta Akyea has robustly refuted suggestions that he has withdrawn from defending former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene in an ongoing legal case, characterising such reports as deliberate misinformation designed to undermine the defence.

In a statement released on 10 September 2026, Mr Atta Akyea made clear that his commitment to his client remains unwavering and that the withdrawal narrative stemmed from disputes surrounding the admissibility of disputed evidence in proceedings before Justice Francis Apangabuno Achibanga at the High Court.

The lawyer stressed that the contested document was formally admitted into evidence without objection during court proceedings, establishing its proper place in the trial record. He stated: "I cannot abandon or disown my client," emphasising that his legal team is actively preparing a substantive defence submission arguing there is no case to answer against Adu-Boahene.

The Defence Strategy Moving Forward

Mr Atta Akyea disclosed that the defence team remains laser-focused on dismantling the prosecution's allegations through established legal procedures rather than engaging in public debate. The strategy centres on filing a "very solid and credible submission of no case" that will challenge the foundation of charges levelled against the former NSB chief.

The lawyer's statement represents a decisive pushback against narratives that have circulated regarding the defence's stability and commitment. By affirming his personal pledge to Adu-Boahene and outlining the robustness of forthcoming legal arguments, Atta Akyea has signalled that the defence intends to mount a vigorous courtroom challenge.

Media Trial Concerns and Ghana's Justice System

Beyond denying withdrawal allegations, Mr Atta Akyea levelled criticism at what he termed the media-driven narrative surrounding the case, arguing that high-profile trials should not be decided in the court of public opinion but rather through evidence and legal argument presented in court.

He noted that Adu-Boahene's case "was launched on the platform of media trial, where lies sell," highlighting concerns that have become familiar in Ghana's legal landscape: the challenge of ensuring fair proceedings when media coverage and public commentary can influence perceptions before the court has rendered judgment. Atta Akyea insisted that "the court is the forum where evidence and law should settle vexed matters," calling for the case to be determined on its legal merits rather than through press statements or public relations campaigns.

The lawyer characterised the allegations against his client as "sordid" and expressed confidence that the defence's submission will demonstrate the weakness of the prosecution's case. This confidence, combined with his emphatic denial of abandonment, suggests the legal battle will continue with intensity before Justice Achibanga.

Why This Matters for Ghana

High-profile cases involving former government officials carry significant weight in Ghana's democratic discourse. The dispute over evidence admissibility, contested allegations, and the tension between media narratives and courtroom proceedings reflect broader concerns about how Ghana's justice system handles sensitive cases involving national security figures.

The NSB's role in national security makes this case particularly significant. Public confidence in both the integrity of the institution and the fairness of legal proceedings depends on cases being tried fairly and transparently. Atta Akyea's insistence that the case be settled in court rather than the media aligns with principles of procedural justice, though it also underscores the challenge faced by the defence in countering damaging public narratives during an active trial.

For Ghanaians invested in the rule of law and institutional accountability, this case will continue to be closely watched as a test of whether the judicial system can deliver impartial justice regardless of a defendant's profile or the intensity of media interest.