The fourth prosecution witness in the trial of former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau, Kwabena Adu-Boahene, and others, has told the High Court that the GH¢49.1 million allegedly stolen by the accused persons was transferred from a public account belonging to the Bureau.
A Staff Officer of the Economic and Organised Crime Office, Frank Marshall Cromwell, who conducted investigations into the matter, made this known to the court under cross-examination on Monday, July 27.
Context
Mr Adu-Boahene is before the court together with his wife, Angela Adjei-Boateng, and two others for allegedly stealing GH¢49.1 million from the state in a purported deal to procure a cybersecurity system for the country.
According to the prosecution, while Adu-Boahene was Director-General of the Bureau of National Communications in 2018, he and his wife allegedly incorporated a private company called "BNC Communication Bureau Limited", a name deliberately similar to the real Bureau of National Communications, to make an account, the "Director BNC" account, appear to be a legitimate state account when funds were funnelled through it.
The two, together with Mildred Donkor and Advantage Solutions Limited, are facing 11 counts of conspiracy to commit crime, stealing, using public office for profit, money laundering and causing financial loss to the state.
Cross-examination
During cross-examination, counsel for the defence, Samuel Atta Akyea, questioned the witness on the nature of the bank account which held the GH¢49.1 million, the amount at the centre of the trial.
Mr Marshall insisted that, contrary to the suggestion of the defence that the said account was not a public account, EOCO had obtained a statement from the Head of Finance of the National Signals Bureau, Edith Ruby Adumuah, who listed the account in question as one of the accounts operated by the country's National Signals Bureau.
Mr Atta Akyea suggested to the witness: "I put it to you that your designation of the Coordinator's account-NSC, as a public account or State BNC account is erroneous."
Mr Marshall answered: "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."
The witness further told the court that investigations showed that the account was opened on the authorisation of the National Security Coordinator to be used for operational purposes, making it 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," Mr Marshall told the court.
Investigations
Counsel further asked the witness whether he was aware that the activities of National Security and Intelligence Agencies could not be investigated in the same manner as activities of conventional public institutions, but the witness replied that he was not aware.
Counsel further suggested to the witness that the activities of National Security involved the use of front companies, black budgets, and decoy mechanisms to achieve National Security imperatives. The witness said he was not aware of that.
Again, counsel suggested to the witness that by the nature of the National Security Coordinator's special operational mandate, it was not unlawful or illegal for him to open special purpose accounts for his national imperatives. However, the witness said he would not know whether or not it was unlawful.
He went on to explain that in the course of investigations, the team found out that the National Security Coordinator sanctioned the opening of the Director BNC account at Fidelity Bank, which became part of the accounts operated by the Bureau of National Communications, currently the National Signals Bureau.
When the trial judge, Justice Francis Achibonga, asked defence counsel when the cross-examination of the witness was to end, counsel said he had a long way to go.
"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 answered that there were still outstanding issues he needed to resolve with the witness, including the possibility of seeking directions from the Court of Appeal on certain disclosures ordered on May 28, 2026.
