Court of Appeal dismisses Adu Boahene's bid to compel AG to release national security records

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an application filed by lawyers for former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director, Kwabena Adu Boahene, and his wife, seeking to overturn a High Court ruling that denied their request for additional disclosures from the Attorney-General’s Office.

The couple’s legal team, led by Samuel Atta Akyea, had in July filed a motion demanding comprehensive disclosures of National Security operational accounts from 1992 to date, spanning the administrations of Presidents Jerry John Rawlings, John Agyekum Kufuor, John Evans Atta Mills, John Dramani Mahama, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, and John Mahama.

Mr. Atta Akyea argued that the Attorney-General had selectively released records related to national security operations in a manner that favoured the prosecution’s case, while withholding documents that could potentially exonerate his clients.

He contended that the omissions violated the accused persons’ right to a fair trial.

However, Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Justice Srem Sai opposed the application, maintaining that the requested materials were irrelevant to the criminal charges at issue. He explained that the case involved allegations of diverting government funds into a private company jointly owned by the accused — a matter confined to a specific period and transaction, not the entire operational history of the National Security apparatus.

The High Court, presided over by Justice Nyantei, earlier rejected the motion, ruling that the documents sought were immaterial to the case’s determination.

When the matter was elevated to the Court of Appeal, Mr. Atta Akyea reiterated that the refusal to disclose the documents had compromised the integrity of the trial process.

But after a detailed review, the three-member appellate panel held that the defence had failed to demonstrate any legal or procedural error on the part of the High Court.

The court concluded that there were no compelling grounds to interfere with the ongoing trial or overturn the previous ruling, effectively dismissing the appeal in its entirety.

The substantive criminal trial — involving alleged financial misappropriation and abuse of public office — is expected to continue before the High Court in the coming weeks.