Court of Appeal dismisses Adu-Boahene’s application for stay of proceedings

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an application by the former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau (NSB), Kwabena Adu-Boahene, and two others seeking a stay of proceedings in their ongoing criminal trial, while partly allowing their appeal for additional disclosures.

In a unanimous decision delivered Thursday (May 28, 2026) in Accra, the three-member panel held that the appellants had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to warrant the suspension of proceedings at the High Court.

The court, however, set aside portions of an earlier ruling of the High Court and ordered the prosecution to provide some disclosures requested by the appellants within a reasonable time to aid fair trial.

The panel, presided over by Justice Georgina Mensah-Datsa with Justices George Buadi and Ayitey Armah-Tetteh concurring, held that disclosures in criminal proceedings were continuous and could proceed concurrently with the trial.

“We hold that compliance with the order of this Court for disclosure can be done concurrently with the case continuing,” the court said.

“The position of the law is that disclosures are continuing or ongoing during the pendency of the case. It is therefore in the interest of justice and speedy trial that the case proceeds,” it added.

The interlocutory appeal arose from a July 3, 2025 ruling by the Accra High Court, presided over by Justice John Eugene Nyante Nyadu, which dismissed an application by the accused persons seeking to compel the Attorney-General to disclose documents they considered exculpatory.

The appellants are Mr Adu-Boahene, his wife Angela Adjei-Boateng and Advantage Solutions Limited.

Partial success

Although the Court of Appeal dismissed the application for stay of proceedings, it allowed portions of the appeal and ordered specific disclosures.

The court directed the prosecution to provide the missing pages two to 89 of Advantage Solutions Limited’s UMB Bank account statement.

It also ordered the immediate past National Security Coordinator to disclose whether the GH¢49.1 million, which is the subject matter of the criminal trial, “was meant for the importation of the cyber defence system alone”.

However, the appellate court declined to grant some of the broader reliefs sought by the appellants, including requests relating to extensive National Security operational accounts and the identities of private National Security operatives.

Charges

The appellants are standing trial on charges including stealing, conspiracy to steal, defrauding by false pretences, wilfully causing financial loss to the state, using public office for profit, collaboration to use public office for profit, obtaining public property by false statements, money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

All three have pleaded not guilty to the charges.

According to the prosecution, Mr Adu-Boahene, who was the immediate past Director of NSB, unlawfully obtained GH¢49.1 million from the National Security Coordinator’s Special Operations Account and transferred the funds into the account of a private company, BNC Communications Limited.

The prosecution contends that the funds were subsequently used for the private benefit of the appellants.

Grounds of appeal

In their appeal, the appellants argued that the High Court judge misinterpreted the constitutional requirement for adequate facilities to prepare a defence under Article 19(2)(e) and (g) of the 1992 Constitution.

They further contended that the judge erred by treating their request for disclosures as premature and by limiting exculpatory evidence to only materials already known to the accused persons during investigations.

The appellants also argued that the prosecution bore the responsibility of procuring and disclosing evidence from investigative and law enforcement agencies, including National Security institutions.

They maintained that the refusal to compel disclosure of the missing bank statement pages prejudiced their trial preparation and undermined their right to a fair hearing.

“The ruling gave aid to the Prosecution to conceal vital and relevant documents and information exculpatory of the Appellants,” portions of the appeal documents stated.

Court

In its judgment, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the settled legal principle that criminal appeals are by way of rehearing and reviewed the entire record of appeal.

The court further held that the prosecution bears a duty not only to disclose materials in its possession, but also materials within the control of investigative agencies or those that could be obtained with reasonable diligence.

The court nevertheless ruled that the appellants had failed to satisfy the legal requirements for stay of proceedings.

The application for stay of proceedings was consequently dismissed for lacking merit.