The ongoing trial of Republic v Kwabena Adu-Boahene and Others took a notable procedural turn on Thursday, April 2, 2026, when the presiding judge issued a pointed caution to the prosecution over conduct that risked compromising the integrity of witness testimony, while cross-examination of a key prosecution witness continued to yield significant revelations about multi-million cedi transactions linked to national security accounts.
Justice Francis Apangabuno Achibonga, presiding at Criminal Court 3 of the Accra High Court, directed his caution at Deputy Attorney General Justice Srem Sai during the cross-examination of the second prosecution witness, Edith Ruby Opokua Adumuah, by counsel for the accused, Samuel Atta Akyea.
Measured but firm in tone, the judge reminded the Deputy Attorney General that while objections are permissible during cross-examination, they must not be used to suggest answers or steer the direction of a witness’s testimony. The court made clear that any attempt to influence a witness’s response is improper and undermines the fairness of cross-examination, a cornerstone tool for testing the credibility and consistency of evidence. The court also asserted its authority to intervene where necessary to protect the independence of witness testimony.
The caution was not the only procedural irregularity noted on the day. The Deputy Attorney General arrived late for proceedings and addressed the presiding judge without the required legal gown and wig, conduct that, while not illegal, is considered improper and contrary to established courtroom practice. At one point, the judge appeared to subtly signal his displeasure, repeatedly instructing the Deputy AG to “resume your seat, resume your seat, resume your seat” as he attempted to interject with an objection.
The legal framework underpinning the judge’s position is well established. Article 19(1) and (2)(g) of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution guarantees every accused person the right to a fair hearing, including the right to cross-examine witnesses on the same conditions as the prosecution. Rule 52(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Rules, 2021, empowers the court to control examination and cross-examination to ensure proper conduct, while Sections 51 and 52 of the Evidence Act allow the court to admit or exclude evidence in the interests of justice. Lawyers are additionally bound by the Ghana Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct to act honestly and fairly, and to avoid suggesting answers or directing witness testimony.
At the centre of Thursday’s proceedings was a methodical cross-examination by Atta Akyea, designed to probe the witness’s knowledge of, and involvement in, a series of large financial transactions routed through accounts linked to national security operations.
Adumuah, who served as Head of Finance at the Bureau of National Communications (BNC) at the relevant time, confirmed that she had personal knowledge of the National Security Coordinator’s Special Operations Account with Fidelity Bank, as it had been brought to her attention. She also acknowledged that prior to her interaction with the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), she had believed that a BNC Operations Account at Universal Merchant Bank (UMB) was itself a Special Operations Account.
Through a careful presentation of documentary evidence, Atta Akyea established that Adumuah had personally deposited two cheques, one for GHC 1 million and another for GHC 21 million, into UMB Bank account number 0241424233018, using paying-in slips dated March 18, 2020 and March 30, 2020 respectively. Both documents were admitted into evidence by the court as Exhibit 9 and Exhibit 10.
Critically, Adumuah confirmed that she knew the account number into which the cheques were being deposited. She further acknowledged that she had made multiple withdrawals from the same UMB account on several dates, including June 24, June 29, July 8, August 18, and December 18, 2020, as well as February 19, 2021. She explained that these transactions were conducted on behalf of her boss, the first accused, Kwabena Adu-Boahene, with the assistance of a UMB Bank Relations Officer.
When pressed on whether the withdrawals were made for National Security Special Operations expenditure, Adumuah stated that she did not know. She also said she could not recall engaging in WhatsApp communications with Adu-Boahene concerning National Security expenditure, a line of questioning that suggests further documentary evidence may be introduced as the cross-examination continues.
A separate cheque of GHC 27,100,000 also featured in the proceedings. Adumuah confirmed she had written the cheque but said she did not know who had deposited it. She also confirmed that in preparing three cheques totalling GHC 49.1 million for the National Security Coordinator’s signature, she had raised no concerns, and that UMB Bank had similarly raised no objections or suspicions when the deposits were made.
The case has been adjourned to April 16, 2026 at 12:00 pm, April 20, 2026 at 10:00 am, and April 21, 2026 at 12:00 pm for the continuation of cross-examination. With the defence yet to conclude its questioning of the second prosecution witness, and the prospect of further documentary evidence on the horizon, the trial shows no signs of losing momentum.
Source: Apexnewsgh.com