The Court of Appeal has handed former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene and his wife, Angela Adjei-Boateng, what legal observers describe as one of the most consequential procedural victories in the ongoing GH¢49.1 million criminal trial, after ordering the Attorney-General and the Republic to release a range of documents and National Security records previously withheld from the defence.

The ruling, contained in a certified true copy of the Court of Appeal’s order dated May 28, 2026, effectively overturns portions of an earlier High Court decision that refused to compel the prosecution to disclose several categories of evidence sought by the accused persons.

The decision follows an interlocutory appeal filed by the defence team led by Samuel Atta Akyea, who argued that prosecutors had failed to provide critical materials necessary for his clients to adequately challenge the allegations levelled against them.

Court Rejects High Court Position

The appeal arose from a ruling delivered by the High Court’s General Jurisdiction Division on July 3, 2025, which dismissed an application seeking an order compelling the Republic to make further disclosures.

Unhappy with that decision, Adu-Boahene and his wife proceeded to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the prosecution was withholding documents central to the issues being litigated in the criminal proceedings.

After hearing submissions from Atta Akyea for the appellants and Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai for the Republic, the appellate court ruled that the request for disclosure should be granted in part and directed the state to release specific documents and information to the defence.

Missing Bank Records Ordered Released

One of the most significant directives issued by the Court of Appeal concerns banking records linked to Advantage Solutions Company Limited, an entity that features prominently in the prosecution’s allegations.

The court ordered the Republic to provide the defence with the previously unavailable pages 2 to 89 of the company’s account statement held at Universal Merchant Bank (UMB), after the defence complained that those pages had been omitted from materials filed in court in June 2025.

The missing records are expected to become a major focus of the defence strategy as lawyers attempt to trace the flow of funds relied upon by prosecutors in the case.

Judges Demand Source of GH¢49.1 Million

In what could become one of the most important aspects of the ruling, the Court of Appeal directed the Republic to disclose the source of the controversial GH¢49.1 million that was allegedly lodged into the National Security Coordinator’s Special Operations Account before being transferred into the account of B.N.C Communications Bureau Limited at UMB Bank.

The source of the funds has remained one of the most hotly contested issues throughout the trial.

While the prosecution has consistently maintained that the money constituted public funds, the defence has repeatedly questioned the state’s characterization of the transactions and demanded clarity regarding the origin and purpose of the money.

The appellate court has now ordered the prosecution to provide that information.

National Security Files Must Be Produced

The Court of Appeal also directed the Republic to disclose the file compiled by the late National Security Coordinator Joshua Kyeremeh relating to the acquisition of the cyber defence system that lies at the centre of the prosecution’s case.

The judges considered the file sufficiently relevant to the proceedings to warrant disclosure.

This aspect of the ruling is particularly significant because previous testimony by prosecution witnesses has repeatedly referenced National Security operational procedures and special operations accounts that were allegedly used in connection with the disputed transactions.

Correspondence on Secret Operations Accounts Ordered Disclosed

In another far-reaching directive, the court ordered disclosure of correspondence authored by Joshua Kyeremeh and other National Security Coordinators concerning the vetting and use of an individual identified in court documents as A2, who was allegedly utilized as a confidential National Security asset.

The correspondence also relates to the establishment of special-purpose accounts used for undercover National Security operations through UMB Bank.

The order could potentially provide new insight into the operational structure and purpose of accounts that have become central to the prosecution and defence narratives.

Special Operations Accounts Come Under Spotlight

The appellate court further ordered the Republic to disclose National Security Coordinator Special Operations accounts connected to Adu-Boahene.

This directive is likely to intensify debate over whether the disputed accounts were personal accounts, as suggested by aspects of the prosecution’s case, or operational National Security accounts used for classified state activities, as maintained by the defence.

The issue has become increasingly important following testimony from prosecution witnesses who acknowledged that certain accounts carried multiple names and were used within the National Security framework.

Court Seeks Clarity on Purpose of Funds

Perhaps one of the most controversial aspects of the ruling concerns the intended use of the GH¢49.1 million itself.

The Court of Appeal directed the immediate past National Security Coordinator to provide full disclosure on whether the amount—which prosecutors have equated to approximately US$7 million—was intended solely for the importation of a cyber defence system.

This order strikes directly at one of the key disputes in the case.

The defence has argued that the prosecution has oversimplified the purpose of the funds, while evidence emerging during trial has suggested that National Security special operations may have involved multiple expenditures beyond the procurement of cyber defence infrastructure.

Defence Claims Vindication

For Atta Akyea and the defence team, the ruling represents a major validation of their long-standing argument that the prosecution cannot selectively disclose evidence while withholding materials that may assist the accused persons.

The veteran lawyer has consistently maintained that Article 19 of the 1992 Constitution guarantees accused persons access to relevant evidence necessary for a fair hearing.

With the Court of Appeal now compelling disclosure of banking records, National Security files, correspondence, and information relating to the source and intended use of the disputed funds, the defence is expected to intensify its challenge to the prosecution’s narrative.

Trial Continues Amid New Evidence Battle

Although the Court of Appeal granted substantial disclosure orders, it did not halt the criminal proceedings.