Adu-Boahene case adjourned pending Supreme Court decision on Legal vacation suit

The Accra High Court has adjourned the trial of former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene and his wife, Angela Adjei-Boateng, pending the outcome of an injunction application before the Supreme Court.

The case has been adjourned to August 25, 2026, at 9:30 a.m.

The injunction application, which is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court on August 20, seeks to restrain the High Court from continuing the trial during the legal vacation.

Justice Francis Apangabuno Achibonga said although the filing of an injunction application does not automatically stop proceedings, the High Court ought to be cautious where a superior court has been asked to restrain it from hearing a matter.

The case was called on Monday, August 17, with Peter Osei-Asamoah holding brief for substantive defence counsel, Samuel Atta Akyea.

Mr Osei-Asamoah asked the court to adjourn the matter, explaining that Mr Atta Akyea had written to the court on August 14 to indicate that other professional commitments prevented him from attending court during the legal vacation.

He said the request was necessary to ensure that the accused persons were properly represented, as guaranteed under the 1992 Constitution.

Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai opposed the request.

He argued that the reason given by Mr Atta Akyea was the same explanation contained in an earlier letter to the Chief Justice and did not show why other lawyers from his firm could not represent the accused persons.

Dr Srem-Sai also reminded the court that it had already directed that the case should proceed during the legal vacation.

He submitted that counsel could not control the pace of proceedings from the Bar and urged the court to reject the request.

The defence then drew the court’s attention to the pending injunction application at the Supreme Court.

Mr Osei-Asamoah said the application specifically sought to stop the High Court from hearing the trial during the legal vacation and was due to be heard on August 20.

He clarified that the defence was not suggesting that the Supreme Court had already restrained the High Court.

Rather, he asked the court to hold proceedings in abeyance until the apex court had determined the application.

Dr Srem-Sai disagreed.

He argued that the mere filing of an injunction application did not take away the High Court’s jurisdiction.

According to him, an injunction only becomes effective when the court grants the order.

The Deputy Attorney-General also argued that where a party seeks to challenge the propriety of proceedings before a lower court, the proper remedies may include judicial review processes such as certiorari or prohibition.

In his ruling, Justice Achibonga rejected the request to adjourn the case to the next legal term.

He said adjourning the matter to October would defeat the purpose for which he had been appointed as a vacation judge.

The judge also noted that the absence of Mr Atta Akyea did not necessarily mean other lawyers from his firm could not represent the accused persons.

However, on the pending injunction application, the court took a different position.

Justice Achibonga said while the prosecution was right that the filing of an injunction application does not automatically stay proceedings, he was reluctant to continue with a trial that the Supreme Court had been asked to restrain.

He therefore adjourned the matter to August 25.

Mr Adu-Boahene and his wife are standing trial over the alleged diversion of GH¢49.1 million meant for the procurement of a cyber-defence system.

Mr Adu-Boahene has pleaded not guilty to charges including defrauding by false pretences, wilfully causing financial loss to the State, using public office for personal gain and obtaining public property by false pretences.

Angela Adjei-Boateng has also pleaded not guilty to charges including allegedly collaborating to use public office for personal gain, conspiracy to commit money laundering and money laundering.

The next major development in the case is expected on August 20, when the Supreme Court hears the injunction application.