The Accra High Court has adjourned the trial of former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau (NSB), Kwabena Adu-Boahene, and his wife, Angela Adjei-Boateng, to August 25, 2026, pending a Supreme Court injunction ruling. The case, involving allegations of diverting GH¢49.1 million for a cyber-defence system, has been set aside until the court’s decision on the restraining order application. Mr. Adu-Boahene and his wife are facing charges including defrauding by false pretences, wilfully causing financial loss to the state, using public office for personal gain, and obtaining public property by false pretences. Mr. Adu-Boahene has pleaded not guilty to these charges, supported by his defense counsel, Peter Osei-Asamoah, who prayed the court to adjourn the matter. The request was made to ensure the accused persons were adequately represented, as stipulated by the 1992 Constitution. The Deputy Attorney-General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, opposing the request, argued that the counsel’s rationale was identical to a letter sent to the Chief Justice, indicating a commitment to other matters during the vacation. He stated that counsel had indicated the case could proceed without him, but not the reason for the delay. Mr. Osei-Asamoah further drew the court’s attention to the injunction application before the Supreme Court, which was specifically requested to prevent the High Court from proceeding with the trial during the vacation. The requested return date was only four days away, with the defense counsel emphasizing that the case was not suggesting the High Court had already been restrained by a Supreme Court order, but rather requesting that proceedings be held in abeyance until the application was determined. Dr. Srem-Sai countered that an injunction application does not automatically prevent a court from exercising its jurisdiction, and that the court should not continue with a case which was asked to be restrained by a superior court. The judge, Justice Francis Apangabuno Achibonga, rejected the request for adjournment, stating that it would mean adjourning the case to October and defeat the purpose of the warrant issued to the High Court to sit as a vacation judge. The judge emphasized that counsel’s absence should not preclude other lawyers representing the accused persons from representing them. The case was adjourned to August 25, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., with the case being formally addressed and the Supreme Court to review the injunction application. The case involved a significant legal battle regarding the control of the High Court’s judicial functions during a period of vacation.”}
Watch Related Video
Source: Graphic Online
