The Courtroom of Enchantment has rejected an utility by former Nationwide Alerts Bureau (NSB) director Kwabena Adu-Boahene and two others to remain proceedings within the ongoing legal trial, however partially granted their enchantment for added disclosures.
In a unanimous judgment handed down in Accra on Thursday (28 Could 2026), the three-member panel held that the appellants had did not exhibit distinctive circumstances justifying a keep of proceedings within the Excessive Courtroom.
Nevertheless, the court docket put aside a few of the Excessive Courtroom’s earlier judgments and ordered the prosecution to supply a few of the disclosures requested by the appellant inside an affordable time frame in an effort to assist a good trial.
The panel, presided over by Justice Georgina Mensah-Datsa and joined by Justices George Bouadi and Aitei Alma-Tetteh, discovered that disclosure in legal proceedings is steady and might proceed in parallel with the trial.
“We maintain that compliance with this court docket’s discovery order could be made concurrently with the continuation of litigation,” the court docket mentioned.
“The place of the legislation is that disclosure continues or is ongoing in the course of the pendency of the case. It’s due to this fact within the pursuits of justice and speedy trial to proceed with the case,” it added.
The interlocutory enchantment arises from a July 3, 2025 judgment by the Accra Excessive Courtroom, presided over by Justice John Eugene Nyante Nyadu, which rejected the defendants’ utility to compel the Legal professional Normal to reveal exculpatory paperwork.
The appellants are Mr. Adu Boahene, his spouse, Ms. Angela Adjei Boateng, and Benefit Options Restricted.
partially profitable
The Courtroom of Appeals denied the movement to remain proceedings, however granted the enchantment partly and ordered particular disclosures.
The court docket directed the prosecution to provide the lacking pages 2 to 89 of Benefit Options Restricted’s UMB checking account assertion.
It additionally ordered the rapid previous Nationwide Safety Coordinator to make clear whether or not the GHF49.1 million that’s the topic of the legal trial was “solely meant for the importation of cyber protection techniques.”
Nevertheless, the appellate court docket declined to grant a few of the broader reduction sought by the appellants, together with requests for broader nationwide safety exercise accounts and the identification of civilian nationwide safety operatives.
Charge
The appellants are on trial for theft, conspiracy to commit theft, fraud by false pretenses, deliberately inflicting monetary loss to the state, exploiting public workplace for revenue, conspiracy to use public workplace for revenue, acquiring public property by false representations, cash laundering and conspiracy to commit cash laundering.
All three have pleaded not responsible to the fees.
In line with prosecutors, Adu Boahene, the rapid previous director of the NSB, illegally obtained CHF49.1 million from the Nationwide Safety Coordinator’s particular operations account and transferred the funds to the account of a personal firm, BNC Communications Restricted.
The prosecution alleges that the funds had been then used for the appellants’ private profit.
Grounds for enchantment
The appellants argued of their enchantment that the Excessive Courtroom judges had misinterpreted the constitutional requirement of enough amenities for getting ready a protection below part 19(2)(e) and (g) of the 1992 Structure.
They additional argued that the decide erred in treating the invention request as untimely and limiting exculpatory proof to materials already identified to the defendant in the course of the investigation.
The appellants additionally argued that prosecutors have a accountability to acquire and disclose proof from investigative and legislation enforcement companies, together with nationwide safety companies.
They argued that the refusal to compel disclosure of lacking financial institution assertion pages hindered trial preparation and undermined their proper to a good listening to.
“This judgment offered help to the prosecution to suppress necessary and related paperwork and knowledge that exonerated the appellants,” the enchantment doc reads partly.
court docket
In its determination, the Courtroom of Appeals reaffirmed the well-established authorized precept that legal appeals are performed by retrial and that your entire appellate report is taken into account.
Moreover, the court docket held that prosecutors are obligated to reveal not solely supplies of their possession, but in addition supplies which might be below the management of investigative companies or that may be obtained with cheap efforts.
However, the court docket dominated that the appellants didn’t meet the authorized necessities to remain the proceedings.
In consequence, the applying to remain the proceedings was dismissed as with out advantage.
