Kwabena Adu-Boahene, the former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau (NSB)
An Accra High Court has ordered the Ghana Police Service to deliver to the defence in the Kwabena Adu-Boahen trial directly all information in their possession in respect of the vehicle BMW 740D with chassis number J020CM11428.
The Court said this would aid the defence in the preparation of a defence in a fair trial.
The Court partially dismissed an application for further disclosures filed by Samuel Atta Akyea, Counsel of Adu-Boahen, his wife, and the fourth accused person, citing irrelevance and non-possession of requested documents by the prosecution.
The Counsel filed a motion seeking disclosure of several documents, including the bill of lading for a BMW vehicle, documents evidencing the port of entry, and the police docket related to the vehicle.
He argued that the bill of lading and related documents were critical to establishing whether Adu-Boahen had imported a stolen vehicle, a claim central to the prosecution’s case.
He said the request for the bill of lading would turn on the light as to the real importer of the so-called stolen vehicle.
The Counsel said the documents showed that the said vehicle would not only allow the court to come to terms with how the so-called stolen vehicle was brought into the realm, and how it was cleared from the port of entry.
Dr Justice Srem-Sai, the Deputy Attorney General, opposed the motion, saying the motion was grounded on a substantial misapprehension of law.
He maintained that the bill of lading was not in the prosecution’s possession but likely held by the accused himself, given that Adu-Boahen’s name appeared as both importer and exporter in the customs declaration form.
He said they wished to prove that Adu-Boahen had failed to declare his assets as required by law and to prove that he had engaged in the purchase and importation of stolen vehicles.
The Deputy AG said it was true that an accused person was entitled to evidence which was not only inculpatory but also exculpatory.
“It is also true that the prosecution is bound by law to supply such evidence to the accused person and it is equally true that so long as the evidence in respect of which a request for disclosure is being made is relevant and is in the possession of the prosecution, then your Lordship ought to order the prosecution to supply such evidence to the accused person,” he said.
He said the question this morning was whether the items listed on the face of the motion paper were first relevant for the determination of the guilt or otherwise of the accused person.
He said the bill of lading of the said stolen vehicle was in the possession of the person who imported the car, and that person was the accused.
He said the customs declarations form had the accused person’s name, and he did not know what was going on.
The Deputy AG said the form had Adu-Boahen’s name as the exporter, together with his address and the country from which the vehicle was exported, with his tax identification number.
Justice John Eugene Nyante Nyadu said the information sought under the first three categories of the motion, namely the bill of lading, port of entry, and vehicle clearance documents, had been sufficiently addressed through disclosures already made in the supplementary witness statement filed by prosecution witness Frank Cromwell.
The Judge said regarding the request for the police docket, while the Attorney General’s office claimed it did not possess such a docket, the Police CID had shared limited extracts from their database.
The accused person, together with his wife and two others, are facing 11 charges, including stealing, money laundering of GH¢49.1 million in State funds, willfully causing financial loss to the State, conspiracy, collaboration to commit crime, and abuse of public office, all of which they pleaded not guilty.
The Case had been adjourned to July 31, 2025.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
