The legal battle involving Kwabena Adu Boahene, former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau (NSB), his wife Angela Adjei-Boateng, and their company Advantage Solutions Limited, took a significant turn as the High Court dismissed their application to stay proceedings and overruled multiple objections presented by their counsel. The ruling marks a major setback for the trio, who are represented by Samuel Atta-Kyea, a lawyer and former Member of Parliament.
Presiding over the case, Justice John Nyadu Nyante ruled that the arguments presented by Mr. Atta-Kyea lacked merit and failed to justify halting the trial. This decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring that procedural technicalities do not impede the progress of justice.
Legal Objections and Heated Exchanges
One of the key objections raised by Mr. Atta-Kyea was related to the withdrawal of Mildred Donkor, the third accused (A3) and former Director of Advantage Solutions Limited, from the prosecution. The defense argued that the Deputy Attorney-General (DAG), Dr. Justice Srem Sai, should have filed a formal motion instead of a notice to effect the withdrawal. This objection led to a spirited exchange between the DAG and Elikplim Agbemava, counsel for the discharged accused.
Mr. Atta-Kyea contended that filing a notice was procedurally insufficient, asserting that the High Court is a court of record and requires formal motions for such actions. However, Justice Nyante interrupted several times to seek clarification on whether judicial precedents prohibited the Attorney-General from using a notice of withdrawal.
Responding to the objection, Dr. Srem Sai emphasized that the Attorney-General acted within his constitutional powers under Article 88(3) of the 1992 Constitution. He argued that procedural technicalities cannot curtail the AG's discretion to prosecute or discontinue prosecution, stating that a notice of withdrawal is both accepted and sufficient under Ghanaian law.
Supporting this position, counsel for A3, Elikplim Agbemava, cited legal authorities affirming that a simple notice suffices for discontinuing prosecution. He further noted that even in cases involving nolle prosequi, the Attorney-General may withdraw orally or by notice, highlighting that such decisions are political in nature and beyond judicial control.
Court Ruling on Withdrawal of Prosecution
After hearing submissions from both sides, Justice Nyante ruled in favor of the prosecution, citing Section 59 of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30). The judge affirmed that the Attorney-General or any prosecutor acting on his instructions may withdraw prosecution against any individual without requiring consent from the court.
"Once the Attorney-General has filed a notice of withdrawal, that suffices," Justice Nyante stated. He subsequently dismissed the objection raised by Mr. Atta-Kyea and ordered that Mildred Donkor be discharged, directing her name to be expunged from all court records.
Admissibility of Evidence and National Security Concerns
Another objection raised by Mr. Atta-Kyea pertained to the admissibility of a document tendered by Edith Ruby Opokua Adumuah, Head of Finance at the National Signals Bureau and prosecution’s second witness. The defense argued that admitting the document could compromise national security and suggested referring the matter to the Supreme Court.
Countering this claim, Dr. Srem Sai asserted that only the Executive arm of government has the authority to classify or declassify documents as state secrets. He warned that allowing private citizens to invoke national security concerns could set a dangerous precedent and stall criminal trials.
Justice Nyante upheld the DAG’s argument, ruling that privilege over official documents on grounds of national security can only be claimed by the Republic through its Executive branch. He further clarified that such privilege must be challenged before any referral to the Supreme Court can be made.
"It is only when the Republic claims this privilege and it is challenged that reference may be made to the Supreme Court," Justice Nyante stated. "That not being the case here, the objection is overruled." Consequently, the document was admitted into evidence.
Conclusion
The High Court’s rulings in this case highlight its commitment to upholding legal principles and ensuring justice is served without undue procedural delays. While these decisions represent significant setbacks for Kwabena Adu Boahene, Angela Adjei-Boateng, and Advantage Solutions Limited, they also reaffirm the constitutional powers vested in the Attorney-General’s office.
As proceedings continue, all eyes remain on how this high-profile case unfolds in subsequent hearings. The court's stance on procedural objections and evidentiary matters will undoubtedly set important precedents for future legal disputes in Ghana.
Stay tuned for further updates as this case progresses.
-GhanaCrimes
