The Adu-Boahene trial took a dramatic turn on Tuesday as the fourth prosecution witness testified before the High Court, revealing that the GH¢49.1 million in dispute was illegally transferred from a public account belonging to the National Signals Bureau (NSB).
An Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) Staff Officer, Frank Marshall Cromwell, who investigated the case, disclosed during cross-examination on Monday, July 27, 2026.
Mr Adu-Boahene is standing trial alongside his wife, Angela Adjei-Boateng, Mildred Donkor and Advantage Solutions Limited over allegations that GH¢49.1 million belonging to the state was stolen in connection with a purported deal to procure a cybersecurity system for the country.
Also read: Adwoa Safo fires back: Akofena has zero right to block Kwadwo Safo’s funeral
The accused persons are facing 11 counts, including conspiracy to commit crime, stealing, using public office for profit, money laundering and causing financial loss to the state.
State account
During cross-examination, defence counsel Samuel Atta Akyea questioned Mr Cromwell about the nature of the bank account into which the GH¢49.1 million was allegedly transferred.
The defence suggested that the account, referred to as the “Director BNC” account, was not a public or state account.
Mr Cromwell, however, disagreed.
He told the court that EOCO had obtained a statement from the Head of Finance of the National Signals Bureau, Edith Ruby Adumuah, which listed the account among those operated by the Bureau of National Communications, now known as the National Signals Bureau.
The witness maintained that the account was held at Fidelity Bank and was among the accounts operated by the state security institution.
“I disagree because the Head of Finance of the Bureau of National Communications listed accounts operated by the Bureau of National Communications, which included the Director BNC account at Fidelity Bank,” Mr Cromwell told the court.
He further testified that investigations established that the account had been opened with the authorisation of the National Security Coordinator for operational purposes.
According to him, the circumstances under which the account was created supported the prosecution’s position that it was a state account.
“I am aware that the account known as the Director BNC account was created on the instructions of the National Security Coordinator for operational purposes of the Bureau of National Communications,” he said.
National security concerns
During the cross-examination, Mr Atta Akyea also questioned the witness about the nature of operations conducted by national security and intelligence agencies.
Counsel asked whether the witness was aware that activities of national security and intelligence agencies could not necessarily be investigated in the same manner as those of conventional public institutions.
Mr Cromwell said he was not aware.
The defence further suggested that national security operations could involve the use of front companies, black budgets and decoy mechanisms to achieve national security objectives.
The witness again said he was not aware of such practices.
Counsel also put it to Mr Cromwell that, given the special operational mandate of the National Security Coordinator, the opening of special-purpose accounts for national security imperatives was not necessarily unlawful.
Mr Cromwell responded that he could not determine whether such an arrangement was lawful or unlawful.
Findings of investigation
The witness maintained that, during investigations, the team established that the National Security Coordinator had sanctioned the opening of the BNC account at Fidelity Bank.
He said the account subsequently became one of the accounts operated by the Bureau of National Communications, which is now the National Signals Bureau.
The testimony forms part of the prosecution’s case that the GH¢49.1 million allegedly stolen by the accused persons originated from a public account belonging to the security agency.
The defence, however, continues to challenge aspects of the prosecution’s evidence, including the classification and operation of the account at the centre of the alleged financial transactions.
The length of the ongoing cross-examination also became an issue in court.
Trial judge Justice Francis Achibonga asked Mr Atta Akyea when he expected to conclude his questioning of the witness.
The judge noted that the witness had been in the witness box for six weeks and reminded counsel that, although defence lawyers were given sufficient time to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, the court also had a responsibility to manage the proceedings.
“Counsel, I always allow defence lawyers all the time to cross-examine witnesses in these cases, but the court also has a duty to manage the case. The witness has been in the box for six weeks. How far do you want to go?” the judge asked.
Mr Atta Akyea responded that he still had outstanding issues to address with the witness.
He also indicated that the defence might seek directions from the Court of Appeal concerning certain disclosures ordered by the High Court on May 28, 2026.
The Adu-Boahene trial is expected to continue as the defence concludes its cross-examination of the fourth prosecution witness.