Accra:Lawyers representing former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene have submitted an application to the High Court, seeking to strike out specific sections of the prosecution's submissions. The defence claims that these sections misrepresent witness testimony and documentary evidence presented during the trial.
According to Ghana Web, the defence argues that the prosecution invented and attributed statements to witnesses that were not part of the official court proceedings. The application, filed by counsel Samuel Atta Akyea, specifically challenges assertions made in the Deputy Attorney-General's submissions on October 9, 2026, claiming they are not supported by the trial record.
Central to the defence's argument is the allegation that the prosecution attributed statements to witnesses that were never made and presented documentary evidence as fact without court validation. The defence insists that both parties must rely only on evidence properly before the court, without inventing or fabricating statements in legal arguments.
A key issue involves Exhibits X and 11, which the prosecution allegedly termed as forged. The defence disputes this, arguing that witnesses PW2 and PW4 never testified to the documents' authenticity. The defence highlights that PW2 was discharged before Exhibit X was introduced, making it impossible for her to have testified on the matter.
Furthermore, the defence disputes the prosecution's portrayal of a GHS49.1 million transaction linked to a cyber-defence system. They argue that PW3's testimony identified ISC International Security Consultants Holdings Limited as the beneficiary, contradicting the prosecution's claim of misuse by the accused and associates.
Additionally, the defence challenges the prosecution's use of Exhibit H, which allegedly implicated payments to Adu-Boahene's mother for a building project. The defence asserts that Exhibit H only shows a photograph of a building without financial annotations supporting the claims.
The defence seeks to exclude the contested portions of the prosecution's submissions from the court's considerations, arguing that facts not established through evidence cannot be relied upon. This application arises within the context of an ongoing trial, where the prosecution has closed its case, and the defence has filed a submission of no case to answer.
The court's decision on this application will influence whether the disputed submissions will be considered in evaluating the sufficiency of evidence for requiring a defence from the accused persons.