FULL DETAILS: REPUBLIC VRS KWABENA ADU BOAHENE
BACKGROUND
1. On the 24th March, 2025 the Attorney General addressed a press conference describing Madam Mildred Donkor, Mr Kwabena Adu Boahene and wife Madam Angela Adjei Boateng as criminals.
2. 36 days after the press conference, on the 30th day of April 2025, Mildred Donkor, Kwabena Adu Boahene, Angela Adjei Boateng, and their lawyers were invited to come and meet the officials of the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) at 2:00pm.
3. After waiting in the premises of EOCO for two (2) hours, armed officials of EOCO surrounded them and bundled them into their vehicle amidst serious protestations from their lawyers.
4. We were driven to the Court premises and ushered into the High Court, General Jurisdiction ’10’ with their lawyers following.
THE AMBUSH, DISREGARD FOR PROCEDURE AND VIOLATION OF ACCUSED HUMAN RIGHTS
5. To their shock and as if it had been pre-arranged, they found the Attorney General, Hon. Dominic Akuritinga Ayine and his Deputy, Dr. Justice Srem Sai cocooned in the Court.
6. Lawyers for Kwabena Adu Boahene could not come to terms with this ambush practice given the fact that they were not officially dressed for Court. This event was around 4:30pm.
7. Right in the Courtroom, a bailiff served their lawyers with the charge sheet and the accompanying facts apparently signed by the Attorney-General and filed in the General Jurisdiction and not the Criminal Division of the High Court on the 30th day of April 2025 at 12:32pm, a few hours before they were forcefully parceled to court in blatant disregard for section 1 (3) of the Practice Direction -Disclosures and Case Management in Criminal Proceedings [2017-2020] 1 SCGLR 362, which provides that, the prosecution is enjoined before a criminal matter is commenced in Court, to file and serve on the accused person or counsel for the accused person (if any) a Charge Sheet and the facts of the prosecution’s case.
8. Immediately lawyers for Kwabena Adu Boahene were served, His Lordship, John Eugene Nyante Nyadu J., fully robed, took his seat and ordered his clerk to mention the case. It is clear that His Lordship condoned this violation of the rights of the accused persons and the law.
9. Their lawyers brought this obvious indecent haste to the attention of the Judge and even protested that they were not properly attired before His Lordship.
10. His Lordship ignored all these matters and the arraignment was completed with the Attorney-General reading the Charge Sheet and the accompanying Facts before the Court. They pleaded not guilty
11. The Judge ordered that the accused should be on the bail granted them by the High Court, Criminal Division, presided over by Her Ladyship, Ruby Aryeetey (Ms.) on the 28th day of March 2025. It was after 6:00pm that everyone exited that special room (GJ 10).
COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL – PLEASURE OF THE DEPUTY AG IS THE COMMAND OF THE COURT AND BLATANT DISPLAY OF BIAS
12. The Attorney-General struggled to file his Witness Statements and disclosures under the Case Management arrangement. Three months later after the AG’s press conference and 34 days after filing charges, the AG On the 2nd day of June 2025, managed to file his Witness Statements and disclosures.
13. On the 23rd day of June 2025, the accused persons filed an application for disclosures with 9th July 2025 as the return date. On the 26th day of June 2025, the case was scheduled for case management conference. The Honourable Deputy Attorney-General drew the attention of the Court to the motion for disclosures. The learned Deputy Attorney-General elected not to file an affidavit in opposition to the motion for disclosures but insisted that His Lordship should abridge time so that the motion is heard the same day. His Lordship acceded to his pleasure.
14. After arguments, His Lordship decided to give a reasoned ruling on the 21st day of July but the Deputy Attorney-General cajoled him to abridge his time to the 3rd day of July 2025 which the Court obliged.
15. On the 3rd day of July 2025, the stampeding of His Lordship did not pay off. He did not deliver the reasoned ruling. He merely pronounced that the application is dismissed. He asked parties to fetch a reasoned decision on Monday, the 7th day of July 2025.
16. The courts ruling violated the principles of fair trial as enshrined in the Constitution because His Lordship Justice Nyante made the following predeterminations and prejudgments underscoring the real likelihood of bias in that His Lordship closed his mind relating to critical matters of exculpatory disclosures and/or evidence and that it is obvious he cannot be objective and impartial in the adjudication of the criminal trial: The judge in his ruling made the following statements which demonstrates that, he has a prejudicial mind.
i. “Their request for further disclosure at this stage therefore, appears to me to be an attempt to stall the progression of proceedings towards commencement of the trial.” — Page 26 Judge’s ruling
ii. “In the case of the missing pages of Exhibit “C”, this court finds same to constitute an abuse of the opportunity for further disclosures for counsel for the accused persons to request an order from this court to compel the prosecution to furnish the accused persons with pages from their own bank accounts when the accused persons can easily do so on their own by going into their bank accounts and printing out their own bank statement with the missing pages included. Page 27-28”
iii. This thinking of the accused persons, in the opinion of this court does not appear to be in accord with public law, and the information requested, if disclosed at all will not assist this court in determining this suit.” — Page 32
iv. “This evidence is irrelevant in the sense that the logic of it urges the court, if it finds conduct on the part of the other National Security Coordinators to be the same as what is alleged to be wrong now, not to hold the accused persons culpable and accountable.
v. This request, in the opinion of this court, is equally premature and may be considered after the prosecution has closed its case and the accused persons/applicants open their defence by asserting that the said Cyber Defence System was indeed purchased and delivered.” — Page 37
17. Dissatisfied with the ruling, Kwabena Adu Boahene and his lawyers lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal.
AG’S ‘ROMANCE’ WITH JUDGE and STAMPEDING OF PROCEEDINGS
18. On the 17th day of July 2025, lawyers for Kwabena Adu Boahene filed an application for stay of proceedings (an application to halt the proceedings at the High Court to allow the Court of Appeal to hear the appeal of the accused persons/applicant) pending an appeal.
19. On the 12th day of August 2025, the Attorney-General filed an Affidavit in Opposition to our motion on Stay of Proceedings. On the 10th day of September 2025, lawyer for Kwabena Adu Boahene and wife moved the motion for stay of proceedings pending an appeal and the learned Deputy Attorney General responded.
20. His Lordship said he would rule on the matter on the 24th day of October 2025. Again, the learned Deputy Attorney-General pushed His Lordship to deliver his own ruling earlier than his diary and time will permit. Typical, His Lordship did the Deputy Attorney-General’s bidding and scheduled his ruling to the 17th day of October 2025 at 9am.
21. When court reconvened on the 17th day of October 2025, the learned Deputy Attorney-General’s earlier stampeding of the judge did not help. His Lordship merely pronounced that the application for stay of proceedings pending appeal is refused and that the parties should apply for the reasoned ruling on the 20th day of October 2025.
22. His Lordship immediately proceeded with the trial after arguments to struck out the 3rd accused of the case so she can graduate as prosecution witness and testify for the Attorney General. This is the same person the Attorney General described in a press conference as a criminal.
As at today, the ruling of the court has not been made available to the accused persons suggestive of the fact that, His Lordship has not finished writing same.
JUDGE’S SPECIAL INTEREST & DENIAL OF EXCLUPATORY EVIDENCE (PROOF OF OWNERSHIP OF ALLEGED 28 HOUSES BELONG TO ADU BOAHENE)
23. On the very same day, the 17th day of October 2025, His Lordship said in the open Court that he would continue the trial every Friday from 9:00am to 4:00pm. Strangely enough, he added Thursday ignoring the practice of the lawyers in other courts.
24. The special interest which His Lordship, sitting as a judge of the General Jurisdiction, is giving to this criminal case, brings us to the conclusion that he cannot be an impartial Arbiter in this case as he is comfortable that the Attorney — General and his good self run with the trial while we are denied the exculpatory disclosures/evidence, our necessary weapons to undermine the Attorney — General’s case and for the putting together of our defence if it becomes necessary.
25. Based on the summary of Accompanying Facts signed by the learned Attorney-General and duly filed in Court making categorical assertions against us that Kwabena Adu Boahene and wife misappropriated monies belonging to the Government of Ghana to purchase houses in London, Accra and Kumasi, on the 17th day of July, 2025 they caused their lawyers to file an application for further disclosures for the addresses of the various houses, payment receipts, proof of ownership of the houses.
26. On the 31 st day of July 2025, when the above motion was scheduled to be moved, the learned Deputy Attorney-General withdrew his affidavit in opposition to the disclosures he filed the very morning. After hearing arguments, His Lordship ruled that disclosure be made by the AttorneyGeneral as and when they come to their custody and thereby making those critical matters open-ended to the detriment of the accused.
27. The pronouncements of His Lordship which amounted to a predetermination of the matter may be found in the record of proceedings as
“It is significant to note that proof of property may come in different forms, especially so when an offence of money laundering is alleged. A property may be held by way of resulting trust for some other person and the ownership documentation or the title may not necessarily be in the name of the 1 st or 2nd accused persons. Therefore, to specifically, requests for disclosures for title deeds among other information to prove ownership where the Honourable Attorney — General states that the same has not come into his possession would be complicated. However, by whatever means the Honourable Attorney — general intends to prove ownership of these two.
ACCUSED PERSONS PROHIBITION APPLICATION – JUDGE NYANTE’S DISREGARD FOR SUPREME COURT RULING AND ATTA AKYEA’S WALK OUT
28. On the 22nd October, 2025 counsel for the accused persons filed an application for prohibition at the Supreme Court under Article 132 of the 1992 constitution and section 5 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) to restrain Justice Nyante Nyadu from continuing with the ‘Kwabena Adu Boahene’ trial.
29. On the 23rd October 2025, at the start of proceedings, counsel for the accused Samuel Atta Akyea, Esq brought to the notice of the court the above application and requested for adjournment to 30th October, 2025 to enable the Supreme Court hear the prohibition application slated for 29th October, 2025
30. The judge subsequently requested for a copy of the application. After His Lordship fortified himself with the content of the application before the Supreme Court, he refused adjournment and ordered proceedings to continue despite counsel for the accused drawing his attention to the recent Supreme Court case of The Republic vrs High Court (Land Division), Accra; Exparte Kennedy Agyapong (Bandoh Interested Party) where the apex court held that, where an applicant files a prohibition application against a judge, and the lawyers request adjournment to enable the SC determine the application and same judge refuses adjournment, that refusal in itself is evidence of bias.
31. Lawyer for the accused persons sought the leave of the court to excuse himself from the days proceedings on the grounds that he will be unable to explain the ambivalence to the Supreme Court.
32. Moments after, the judge ordered the continuation of the examination in chief of of the second prosecution witness, Kwabena Adu Boahene raised his hand and brought to the attention of the court that, he is unrepresented by counsel. The judge granted a recess of 30 mins to enable Kwabena Adu Boahene contact a lawyer.
33. When proceedings reconvened, the accused communicated his inability to engage his counsel. The judge subsequently prounnouced that, he had had a rethink of the issues and adjourned proceedings to 30th October, 2025.
The Supreme Court will be hearing the prohibition application Tomorrow. Stay tuned for update…
