High Court to Rule on Whether Prosecution Misrepresented Evidence in Adu-Boahene Trial

The High Court in Accra has scheduled Thursday, October 29, to hear arguments on a significant procedural motion in the ongoing trial of Kwabena Adu-Boahene, Angela Adjei Boateng and Advantage Solutions Limited. The motion, filed by defence lawyers on October 19, alleges that the prosecution has misrepresented witness testimony and documentary evidence in its written legal submissions to the court.

The defence team, led by lawyer Samuel Atta Akyea, is seeking to have specific passages removed from the prosecution's response to the accused persons' submission of no case to answer—a critical juncture in criminal trials where the defence argues that the state has failed to establish a credible case warranting the defendant to mount a defence.

According to the motion, the prosecution's written submissions contain factual claims that either contradict what witnesses actually testified to or are entirely unsupported by the trial record. The defence argues that presenting such claims through written submissions constitutes impermissible evidence-giving from the bar, and the court should strike out these passages before ruling on the substantive no case submission scheduled for November 5.

Six Categories of Disputed Evidence

The defence has identified six distinct areas where they contend the prosecution's account of the evidence diverges significantly from what was actually presented in court. These include claims about the authenticity of purchase agreements and invoices related to a cyber-defence system, assertions regarding contracts between the National Signals Bureau and ISC Holdings Limited, and allegations about how funds totalling GH¢49.1 million were spent.

In one example, the defence points out that the prosecution asserted two witnesses testified that certain documents were not genuine. However, the supporting affidavit notes that one witness had already been discharged from the case before the agreement in question was even admitted as evidence—making it logically impossible for that witness to have testified about it. On invoices, the defence quotes the second witness as saying "it is likely one will be an error," arguing this tentative statement does not support the prosecution's characterisation of documents as forged or fabricated.

Regarding a disputed invoice from March 2020, the defence contends the prosecution mischaracterised it as covering a one-time purchase, when witness testimony actually acknowledged that the amount discussed was not full payment and another invoice for the same acquisition had been processed.

Why This Matters for Ghana

This procedural dispute touches on fundamental principles of justice and fair trial rights that matter to all Ghanaians. The case illustrates how defence teams use legal mechanisms to hold the prosecution accountable to the evidence actually presented in court. If the defence succeeds in having passages struck out, it will demonstrate that courts are willing to police prosecutorial overreach and ensure that factual arguments are grounded in the trial record rather than prosecutorial assertion.

Conversely, if the court rejects the motion, it signals that prosecutors have broad latitude to characterise evidence in their written submissions, even if their characterisations go beyond what witnesses actually said. This ruling will have implications for how future prosecutions are conducted in Ghana's courts and the standards to which the Attorney-General's Office is held.

The case also underscores the importance of rigorous judicial review during high-stakes criminal trials, particularly those involving allegations of financial misconduct and misuse of public resources. As Ghana strengthens its institutions and anti-corruption efforts, how courts handle such procedural and evidentiary disputes sends a signal about the quality and fairness of Ghana's justice system.

Next Steps

At Monday's hearing on October 26, the judge noted that the case docket was at his home and that he had only been made aware of the motion that morning, partly explaining the adjournment. The Attorney-General's Office, which is responsible for the prosecution, had not filed a formal response to the motion as of the Monday hearing, despite reportedly being served with it on October 19.

Thursday's proceedings will determine which, if any, of the prosecution's submissions will be struck out before the court rules on the substantive submission of no case to answer on November 5. The outcome could significantly shape the trajectory of the trial.