Lawyers for former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene have asked the High Court to strike out portions of the Deputy Attorney-General’s written submissions, alleging that they contain statements that do not reflect the evidence presented during the trial.

The defence team argues that some statements in the prosecution’s submissions have been wrongly attributed to witnesses, insisting that those statements cannot be found in the official court record.

The application challenges parts of the prosecution’s response to the defence’s submission of no case to answer.

Defence Challenges Evidence Attributed to Witnesses

According to Adu-Boahene’s lawyers, the prosecution’s written arguments include claims that were not established through witness testimony.

The defence maintains that lawyers must base their arguments on evidence presented in court and should not introduce new claims through written submissions.

One area of dispute concerns Exhibits X and 11, which the prosecution allegedly described as forged or fabricated documents. The defence contends that prosecution witnesses PW2 and PW4 did not testify that the documents were forged.

The lawyers are therefore asking the court to examine the disputed passages against the official record before relying on them in determining whether the accused persons have a case to answer.

Dispute Over GH¢49.1 Million Transaction

The defence has also challenged the prosecution’s interpretation of evidence relating to a GH¢49.1 million transaction connected to the alleged procurement of a cyber-defence system.

Adu-Boahene’s lawyers dispute the claim that the money was spent on the accused persons and their relatives, friends and associates. They argue that the relevant testimony identified ISC International Security Consultants Holdings Limited as the beneficiary of exhibits connected to the transaction.

The defence says the prosecution’s account does not accurately reflect what the witness told the court.

Another disputed issue concerns Exhibit H, which the prosecution allegedly relied on in discussing payments linked to a building project in Kumasi.

The defence argues that the exhibit is a photograph of a building and does not, by itself, establish that particular payments were made. It maintains that the prosecution’s interpretation goes beyond what the exhibit can prove.

Lawyers Ask Court to Disregard Disputed Claims

Adu-Boahene’s legal team wants the High Court to strike out the specific passages identified in its application. Alternatively, it is asking the court to disregard those passages when considering the prosecution’s case.

The application comes after the prosecution closed its case on September 8, 2026. The defence filed its submission of no case to answer on September 25, followed by the prosecution’s response on October 9.

A submission of no case to answer asks the court to determine whether the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence for the accused persons to be required to open their defence.

The latest application centres on whether the prosecution’s written arguments accurately reflect the testimony and exhibits presented during the trial.

The allegations of fabricated or misrepresented evidence remain the defence’s claims. The court’s decision on the application will determine whether the challenged passages can be considered in assessing the case against Adu-Boahene and the other accused persons.

Also Read:Kofi Adams Meets Hyundai Executive On Sports Developmen