Samuel Atta Akyea, Lawyer for former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene, has argued that key individuals within the National Security leadership at the time of the alleged offence should be called to testify in the ongoing GH¢49.1 million trial.
Speaking on Citi Eyewitness News on Wednesday, June 3, he questioned why persons he described as central to the operations at the time, including former National Security Minister Albert Kan-Dapaah and then National Security Coordinator, had not been called as witnesses.
He explained that the nature of national security operations makes it necessary for those in top leadership positions to clarify how decisions and financial transfers were handled.
“It is as a result of the hard fact that no one national security setup can second-guess the internal workings of another national security setup,” he said.
Atta Akyea argued that if the allegation is that Kwabena Adu-Boahene had the influence to move funds from the Coordinator’s account into a private account for alleged misappropriation, then those who were in charge at the time should be able to provide answers.
“If there is an allegation that in 2020 Adu-Boahene was powerful enough to have moved money from the coordinator’s account into a private account where he misappropriated the money, then the one who should be able to speak to this is Kan-Dapaah,” he stated.
He further questioned the prosecution’s choice of witnesses, arguing that individuals he considers more relevant to the matter had not been called.
“Why are you using a driver as a prosecution witness, rather than using the people who are very consequential during the material time of the so-called crime?” he asked.
The lawyer also referenced the alleged cyber defence software procurement deal at the centre of the case, insisting that key external parties, including the Israeli company involved, should also have been called to testify.
He claimed that the absence of such witnesses weakens the prosecution’s case.
“The Israeli company is not a prosecution witness in this matter… for them to come and testify that they did not supply any cyber defence system and that any money transferred to them was a hoax,” he said.
Atta Akyea maintained that the absence of what he described as key witnesses raises serious questions about the strength of the prosecution’s case, adding that critical evidence appears to be missing in court.
