Atta Akyea: Prosecution Failed To Link GH¢49.1m To Adu-Boahene’s Properties, Vehicles

Lead counsel for former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene and two others, Samuel Atta Akyea, has argued that the evidence presented by the Attorney-General’s Office has failed to establish a financial link between the alleged GH¢49.1 million at the centre of the case and the properties and vehicles attributed to the accused persons.

According to Mr. Atta Akyea, the prosecution’s fourth and final witness, EOCO Investigator Frank Marshall Cromwell, was unable to demonstrate that identifiable portions of the alleged GH¢49.1 million were used to acquire the specific assets presented to the Accra High Court.

Speaking in an interview with Asempah FM, in Accra recently, the lawyer said the prosecution had closed its case without establishing the crucial financial nexus between the alleged diverted funds and the properties and luxury vehicles it had placed before the court.

He said although the prosecution had cited properties at Mayfair Estates, Belsize Park, Oyarifa, Doorchester Heights, Kobby Keach Hotel and properties in London, among others, the evidence did not show how the alleged GH¢49.1 million was applied to acquire each of them.

‘No direct payment to Doorchester Heights’

The defence position, Mr. Atta Akyea said, was reinforced during the final day of Cromwell’s cross-examination on September 8, 2026.

Frank Marshall Cromwell, under questioning, admitted that the documents before the court did not show direct payments from the accounts analysed towards the acquisition of Doorchester Heights.

When Mr. Atta Kyea asked: “So can you point to any part of the alleged GH¢49.1 million that you can trace to the purported acquisition of Doorchester Heights?”

Cromwell responded: “In all documents provided before this court, there were no direct payments from accounts analysed towards Doorchester Heights, but I can recall statements provided by PW3 in respect of a project in Kumasi.”

The witness also said asset investigations were still ongoing in respect of some of the properties.

When asked whether he could trace any portion of the alleged GH¢49.1 million to the purported acquisition of Belsize Park and Kobby Keach Hotel, Cromwell replied: “As I indicated, an asset investigation is ongoing in respect of these properties.”

Vehicle purchases not traced

Mr. Atta Akyea also challenged the witness to identify the portion of the alleged GH¢49.1 million that was used to acquire the vehicles frozen in connection with the case.

Asked “Which part of the GH¢49.1 million did you trace to the acquisition of these vehicles?”, Cromwell responded: “I do not recall.”

The witness further conceded that he could not directly connect the alleged dissipation of funds to the frozen vehicles through Exhibits U and Y.

“I do not recall from my Exhibits U and Y directly connecting dissipation of funds to vehicles frozen and suspected to be stolen vehicles,” Cromwell told the court.

Mr. Atta Akyea said the admission was significant because the prosecution had relied heavily on the properties and vehicles as part of its case against Adu-Boahene and his wife, Angela Adjei-Boateng.

Treasury Bills claim

The defence also questioned the prosecution’s allegation that some of the GH¢49.1 million had been invested in treasury bills.

Asked to identify evidence showing that Adu-Boahene and his wife had acquired treasury bills using the alleged funds, Cromwell said there was no such evidence in Exhibit Y.

He told the court: “On Exhibit Y, there is no such mention of it.”

When referred to Exhibit U, he said: “Exhibit U have fixed deposits rather.”

Mr. Atta Akyea also asked how much of the alleged GH¢49.1 million had been applied to a fertilizer business. Cromwell responded that there was no such estimate in his Exhibit Y.

London properties

The defence further challenged the prosecution’s evidence concerning properties in London. When Mr. Atta Akyea asked the witness for the purchase price of the London property, Cromwell replied that, “Off head, I do not have the value.”

The witness acknowledged that the asset investigation documents relating to the London properties had not been placed before the court, although he said information obtained showed that two London properties were registered in the name of Vertex Solutions, which he said was owned by the second accused, Angela Adjei-Boateng.

GH¢1.5m Mayfair payment

Cromwell, however, maintained that he had identified a GH¢1.5 million transfer to Mayfair Estates which was traceable to BNC Communications Bureau Limited through Advantage Solutions.

Mr. Atta Akyea’s argument is that establishing such an individual transaction does not, by itself, demonstrate that the remaining alleged GH¢49.1 million was used to acquire all the other properties and vehicles attributed to the accused persons.

He contends that the prosecution was required to establish a clear financial trail showing how the alleged proceeds were applied to the specific assets forming part of its case.

Kobby Keach Hotel ownership challenged

The defence’s challenge to the property evidence was further strengthened by revelations concerning Kobby Keach Hotel in Kumasi.

It emerged during the proceedings that the owners of the hotel had sued the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) in the High Court over the freezing of the property and its alleged attribution to Adu-Boahene.

The development, according to the defence, raises further questions about the prosecution’s claim of ownership and its treatment of the property as an asset connected to the accused.

Prosecution’s case closed after 18 months

The prosecution has now closed its case after about 18 months of proceedings, leaving the court to determine whether the evidence led by the State is sufficient to warrant the accused persons being called upon to open their defence.

Mr. Atta Akyea maintains that the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the testimony of its final witness, has failed to bridge the gap between allegations of ownership of assets and proof that the alleged GH¢49.1 million was actually used to acquire those assets.

The alleged GH¢49.1 million is at the centre of the prosecution’s case against Adu-Boahene and his co-accused. The Attorney-General, Dr. Dominic Ayine, had alleged at a press conference on March 24, 2025, that the funds had been diverted from an account associated with the National BNC and subsequently used for personal expenses, investments and acquisitions, including real estate and luxury vehicles.

The defence, however, says the evidence subsequently led in court has not established those alleged financial connections.

No-case submission due September 25

Presiding Judge Justice Francis Apangabuno Achibonga has directed the defence to file its submission of no case to answer by September 25, 2026.

The Attorney-General will have 14 days from the date of service of the defence’s submission to file its response, while the defence will have a further seven days to file a reply.

The court has subsequently adjourned the case to November 5, 2026, when it is expected to rule on the defence’s submission of no case to answer.

If the court upholds the submission, the accused persons could be discharged without being called upon to open their defence. If it is dismissed, the case will proceed to the defence stage.

 

 

For more  news, join The Chronicle  Newspaper channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbBSs55E50UqNPvSOm2z

The post Atta Akyea: Prosecution Failed To Link GH¢49.1m To Adu-Boahene’s Properties, Vehicles appeared first on The Ghanaian Chronicle.

Read Full Story