Defence challenges GH¢49.1m figure in Adu-Boahene case
Lawyer Samuel Atta Akyea argued before the Accra High Court that the cedi equivalent of the $7 million transaction should be GH¢38.15 million, not GH¢49.1 million as stated by the prosecution.
The defence in the trial of former National Signals Bureau Director-General, Kwabena Adu-Boahene, has challenged the prosecution’s calculation of the amount allegedly involved in the cyber defence procurement case.
Lawyer Samuel Atta Akyea argued before the Accra High Court that the cedi equivalent of the $7 million transaction should be GH¢38.15 million, not GH¢49.1 million as stated by the prosecution.
The issue came up on Wednesday, July 14, during the cross-examination of EOCO investigator Frank Marshall Cromwell.
Mr Cromwell is the fourth prosecution witness and lead investigator in the case.
Mr Atta Akyea questioned the exchange rate used by investigators to arrive at the GH¢49.1 million figure.
“I put it to you that the cedi equivalent of the $7 million translates to GH¢38.15 million at the material time,” counsel told the witness.
Mr Cromwell rejected the suggestion, responding: “That is counsel’s arithmetic.”
The exchange led to further arguments over the basis of the prosecution’s computation.
Principal State Attorney Esi Dentaa Yankah reminded the court that the matter had already been addressed when Bank of Ghana documents were tendered in earlier proceedings.
But Mr Atta Akyea said those documents related to previous witnesses and not Mr Cromwell, who led the investigation and supplied the figures on which the charges were based.
Presiding judge Justice Francis Achibonga later intervened and said the court would determine the issue from the evidence before it.
He also questioned whether the exact amount would be decisive if the prosecution is able to prove that money was stolen.
“Does the amount involved matter if there’s money missing?” the judge asked.
Justice Achibonga observed that in a stealing charge, the amount may become relevant mainly at the stage of punishment if the offence is established.
“The charge of stealing, if established, doesn’t matter the quantum; perhaps that may only come in in terms of the punishment to be meted out,” he remarked.
The case has been adjourned for continuation on July 23, 27, 28 and 29 at 9:30 a.m. each day.
It will also continue on July 30 at 12:00 p.m.
