State prosecutors have questioned the relevance of a request from lawyers of embattled former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director General, Kwabena Adu-Boahene, for disclosure of information, including national security documents, dating back to 1992.
While questioning the basis of the said documents per the request, Deputy Attorney General Dr. Justice Srem Sai said the “courtroom is not a marketplace to be flooded” with unnecessary documents
“Our point is simple in the sense that the courtroom is not a marketplace to be flooded with all manner of documents,” the Deputy AG said.
The Deputy AG was opposing to a request from the embattled NSB former DG and three others – Angela Adjei Boateng, Mildred Donkor and Advantage Solutions who have been charged for allegedly stealing GHc49M earmarked for the purchase of Cyber Security Defense.
In an application filed on June 23, Adu-Boahene and the three other accused persons through their lawyers said they want certain documents disclosed.
Per their request, they are asking among other things for a “further order that the Attorney-General should make full disclosure and produce for inspection and making copies of the various National Security Coordinators’ special operations accounts.”
Rawlings to Mahama
They said, they want the documents in the following governments; President Rawlings’s Government (1992 to 2001), President Kufuor’s Government (2001 to 2009), President Atta Mills’s Government (2009 to 2012), President Mahama’s Government (2012 to 2013), President Mahama’s Government (2013 to 2017), President Akufo-Addo’s Government (2017 to 2025) and President Mahama’s Government (2025 to date).
The accused persons also want the names of private National Security operatives, who served as sources of confidential assistance, in the various National Security space above, in contradistinction to official National Security undercover operatives, who the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Accused Persons (Adu-Boahene, Angela ADJEI Boateng and Mildred Donkor respectively will select from the pool as defence witnesses.
They also want an additional order that the immediate exited National Security Coordinator, should make full disclosure as to whether the sum of GH$49.1M which is being erroneously converted by the Prosecution as US$7M was meant for the importation of the cyber defence system alone.
This led to the Prosecution opposing to the request before the High Court in Accra presided over by Justice John Eugene Nyante Nyadu.
Kwabena Adu-Boahene, 1st Accused, Angela Adjei Boateng, 2nd Accused, Mildred Donkor, 3rd Accused, and Advantage Solution Limited ( company) have been slapped with 11 charges including stealing.
They have all pleaded not guilty to the charges and are all on bail.
The Court has set July 3, 2025 to determine the grant or otherwise of the application.
Abridgment of time
In Court on Thursday, June 26, when the case was called, Samuel Atta Akyea, Counsel for the accused persons indicated to the filing of an application for further disclosures.
He said the hearing date on the application is slated for July 9 and prayed for adjournment.
But, Deputy Attorney General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai prayed for an abridgment of time for the application to be heard despite not formally filing an affidavit in opposition.
He said, the AG will opposed to the request, despite not formally filing an affidavit.
Justice Nyadu consequently abridged the time for hearing and invited counsel for the accused persons to move their motion.
*Argument
Samuel Atta Akyea, while moving the motion said, the AG has no (formal) affidavit in opposition to all the matters the first accused had deposed to on his own behalf and for and on behalf of the second and third accused person so long as they relate to factual matters.
Significantly, he said, the AG who has denied himself of the opportunity to file an affidavit in opposition is deemed to have admitted the content of my affidavit and the exhibits.
Relating to a very unfortunate dimension to what the Attorney General filed that the National Security Coordinator’s special Operations Account which is annexed as exhibit H, Lawyer Atta Akyea said, the AG is comfortable to divulge National security matters to advance the prosecution of the case.
It was the case of counsel that, by virtue of the authorities already known, disclosures are at the behest of the prosecution and must be of necessity include all that is exculpatory of the accused persons.
With that premise, he submitted that, it is not the pleasure of the attorney general to decide which of the disclosures are palatable to him and those which are not.
Counsel cited, the Supreme Court decision on Baffoe-Bonnie case and the practice direction spelling out matters, pointing to the operative word “shall” which makes it mandatory.
He submitted that, it is unfortunate that the prosecution os attempting to determine what is relevant, a development he said is a total subversion of the law and a misinterpretation of the word exculpatory evidence.
He argued that, it is on the back of a public display of the National security coordinator’s special operations account during the Presidency of Nana Akufo-Addo to the whole world that the applicant is praying the court that all the National security coordinators special operations account since the fourth republic be produced for inspection.
He said, in exhibit ‘C’ of their motion which the Attorney General cannot challenge because he filed it himself and left out a lot of pages, those matters should be disclosed as they are very exculpatory. The missing pages should be disclosed.
Wild goose chase
Deputy Attorney General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai while opposing to the request stated that, the law remains clear that evidence sought must be relevant.
He argued that, “If we proceed on the premise that whatever defence considers as necessary as disclosure should be allowed in or filed before we get to the point of evidence, the defence is likely to send the prosecution on a wild goose chase including asking for the sea only for then to say it not needed.”
It was the submission of the Deputy AG that, Counsel for the accused should have stated how each of these documents they are asking for is relevant and supported by the Evidence Act and the Practice Direction.
While pointing to the Section 51 of the Evidence Act, he said, that provision had made it very emphatic that no evidence is admissible except relevant evidence.
Dr. Srem-Sai argued that, the practice direction which regulates disclosures made it clear that evidence which will warrant disclosure must satisfy two conditions .
The – first condition is that, it must be relevant and the deciding condition is that it must be evidence which is in the exclusive possession of the prosecution.
“Therefore, the duty on the defence is to show your Lordship that each of these documents which is listed on the face of the motion is relevant.
To buttress his submission, he explained that, Relevance simply means that the material should aid in the resolution of the matter before the court.
The matters before the court are the charges, the statement of facts and the witness statements we filed to show whether the accused persons are guilty of the offences they have been charged with.
Bank statements
The first material documents being requested by the accused he said is the bank statement of the company that the accused persons themselves had been directors and shareholder.
“I recall that counsel’s attention was drawn to the opportunity to file any disclosures,,” he said an invitation which counsel summarily declined.
“Now counsel turns around and is praying your Lordship to order the prosecution to go into the accused persons’ bank account and print out their own bank statements for them. That is not the purpose of the opportunity for further disclosures.
Courtroom not marketplace
In respect of the rest of the items listed, the Deputy AG said, counsel has not bothered to surmount the burden of relevance.
For example, he said, the allegation is that the accused persons have moved funds for a particular government account into a private company which they have incorporated within a particular period.
“What has that got to do with President Rawlings, Kufuor, Akufo-Addo and Mahama governments?,” he asked rhetorically.
“Our point is simple in the sense that the courtroom is not a market place to be flooded with all manner of documents.
The only document which are admissible which in the voice of section 51:3 of the evidence act is no evidence is admissible except relevant and that the prosecution cannot be compelled
“A request for further disclosure must pass the test of relevance. We have backed this position with the practice direction of 2018 particularly paragraph 2(1e) and section 51 of the evidence act,” Dr Justice Srem-Sai indicated.
Based on this contention, “we have submitted that neither the affidavit in support of the motion nor the submission made in court have proven or even attempted to prove that any of the items being requested is relevant to proving or disproving the allegations in this trial.”
The case has been adjourned to July 3, for ruling.
By Mutala Inusah
