Private legal practitioner, Kwesi Botchway Jnr, has strongly challenged the state’s case against former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau, Kwabena Adu Boahene.
According to the lawyer, the prosecution’s case contains several inconsistencies, weak evidence, and contradictions that could eventually lead to Adu Boahene being acquitted.
His comments follow growing confidence from some government officials, including Deputy Attorney General Justice Srem-Sai, who believe the state can secure a conviction in the case involving the alleged diversion of GH¢49.1 million meant for a cyber defence procurement project.
In a detailed legal analysis titled “Shocking Revelations Why Kwabena Adu Boahene Will Walk Free,” Lawyer Botchway Jnr argued that despite the seriousness of the allegations and the public attention surrounding the matter, the state has not yet presented a strong and convincing criminal case capable of meeting the high legal standard needed for a conviction.
He stressed that public anger, political discussions, and media commentary cannot replace solid evidence in court.
“The state may have a politically explosive case, but winning in court is a different matter entirely as the court deals with material evidence, facts and a coherent story,” he stated.
The lawyer explained that under Ghana’s criminal justice system, the responsibility to prove guilt lies entirely with the prosecution unless the law says otherwise.
Referring to Article 19(2) of the 1992 Constitution, he said every accused person is considered innocent until proven guilty, meaning Mr Adu Boahene does not have to prove his innocence in court.
He also cited the famous English case Woolmington v DPP, where Lord Sankey stated: “It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the accused’s guilt”.
describing it as one of the key principles of criminal law in Ghana and other common law countries.
Lawyer Botchway Jnr further referred to Miller v Minister of Pensions and Bakare v The State to support his argument that criminal convictions can only happen when the evidence leaves no reasonable doubt about the accused person’s guilt.
According to him, one major challenge facing the prosecution is the testimony of its own key witness, Edith Ruby Opokua Adumuah, who serves as Head of Finance at the NSB.
While the Attorney General publicly described the GH¢49.1 million transaction as fraudulent and linked it to an undelivered cyber defence system, the witness reportedly told the court that the payments were “genuine special operations transactions” which she personally approved after delivery and acceptance procedures were completed.
Lawyer Botchway Jnr argued that this testimony weakens the prosecution’s public claims and creates doubt about whether the transactions were actually criminal.
He also highlighted another inconsistency involving the alleged missing funds.
According to him, during cross-examination, the witness admitted she did not know of any theft or missing money within National Security and had never reported any loss to the Auditor-General, EOCO, the police, or even her superiors.
The lawyer believes this creates what he called “a serious evidentiary problem” for the prosecution because the institution involved did not originally treat the transactions as theft.
He further questioned the prosecution’s description of certain bank accounts as Mr Adu Boahene’s personal accounts.
According to him, the defence established during cross-examination that some of the disputed accounts were operational National Security accounts used for special assignments and not ordinary personal accounts as previously suggested publicly.
He said the prosecution witness admitted in court that the National Security Coordinator had the authority to open special operational accounts and assign signatories for official activities.
“She also testified that she personally transacted on the account several times. She told the court that she personally paid two of the three disputed cheques into the said account and also withdrew several sums of money from the account,” he stated.
Lawyer Botchway Jnr argued that if the court accepts this explanation, the prosecution’s effort to present the movement of funds as suspicious may fail.
He also pointed to inconsistencies regarding the Attorney General’s public claim that GH¢49.1 million was equal to seven million dollars.
According to him, the witness admitted in court that based on the 2020 exchange rate, the amount did not exactly equal seven million dollars as earlier claimed publicly.
Although this may seem minor, the lawyer argued that such details are important in financial crime cases where accurate tracing of funds is necessary to prove criminal intent.
He further stated that the prosecution’s focus on large cash withdrawals and claims that money was carried in “Ghana Must Go” bags may not automatically prove criminal activity.
According to him, the witness testified that such cash movements were common in National Security operations and did not necessarily mean state funds had been stolen.
Lawyer Botchway Jnr also said WhatsApp conversations between Mr Adu Boahene and the prosecution witness, which were admitted into evidence, appear to support the defence’s argument.
He explained that parts of the messages reportedly linked some of the disputed withdrawals and transfers to operational requests, logistics, and field expenses connected to National Security work.
According to him, this suggests the prosecution may have selectively interpreted the transactions while ignoring evidence pointing to official operational purposes.
The lawyer also questioned the state’s claim that the cyber defence system at the centre of the case was never procured.
He said the Head of Finance reportedly testified that she personally approved payment for the system after confirming delivery to National Security.
According to the witness, only the Israeli vendor, ISC Holdings, and top National Security officials would know whether the equipment is still in the custody of the state.
Another issue raised by the lawyer concerns the actual source of the GH¢49.1 million.
He explained that the witness testified all government funds released to National Security passed through the Ghana Integrated Financial Management Information System and were deposited into official Bank of Ghana accounts.
However, she reportedly stated that the Coordinator’s special-purpose accounts at Fidelity Bank never received public funds processed through GIFMIS and that the disputed GH¢49.1 million was not included in the 2020 budget she prepared.
According to Lawyer Botchway Jnr, this raises serious legal questions about whether the money can even be classified as public funds belonging to the state.
He maintained that although these contradictions do not automatically prove Mr Adu Boahene’s innocence, they significantly strengthen the defence by creating reasonable doubt.
“In criminal law, especially in complex financial crime cases, prosecutors must present a consistent, coherent and unambiguous narrative,” he stressed.
He added that once prosecution witnesses begin confirming operational explanations, denying knowledge of theft, acknowledging authorised procedures, and disputing financial calculations, the prosecution may begin to appear politically motivated rather than legally convincing.
Lawyer Botchway Jnr further argued that the state has not yet presented documentary evidence proving the true purpose of the alleged stolen funds, any official confirmation from the National Security Coordinator that the cyber defence system was never delivered, or land documents showing that the accused persons acquired properties using proceeds of crime.
“Unless the prosecution can conclusively prove unlawful enrichment and criminal intent beyond reasonable doubt, the court could acquit him,” he stated.
The lawyer believes that Mr Adu Boahene could eventually walk free, not because the allegations are unimportant, but because criminal cases require very strong evidence and, in his opinion, the prosecution has not yet met that standard.
