A member of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) communications and legal teams, Kwesi Botchway Jnr, has challenged the prosecution’s case against former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene, arguing that the alleged movement of GH¢49.1 million does not, by itself, establish criminal appropriation.
Mr Botchway said the prosecution had failed to demonstrate that the funds were diverted from their intended destination or unlawfully appropriated by any of the accused persons.
The case involves Mr Adu-Boahene, his wife Angela Adjei-Boateng, Mildred Donkor and Advantage Solutions Limited, who are facing 11 charges over the alleged misappropriation of the funds. They have all pleaded not guilty.
Speaking on Metro TV, Mr Botchway said the prosecution’s assertion that the money was diverted into a private account raised a fundamental question about where the funds were originally supposed to have gone.
“If you allege diversion, then there has to be an original destination. They haven’t been able to show that,” he said.
Cheque signatures challenged
Mr Botchway also disputed suggestions that Mr Adu-Boahene personally authorised the movement of the funds by signing the relevant cheques.
He said the bank account in question operated under a two-signatory mandate and argued that evidence before the court showed that the cheques were signed by other officials.
“The mandate on the account at all material times required two signatures. And so you cannot say that Dubai signed the cheques,” he said.
According to him, the mere fact that the funds were transferred did not establish wrongdoing, particularly because the transaction had been authorised by the National Security Coordinator.
He said the prosecution’s task was therefore to go beyond proving that the money moved and establish that the movement constituted an unlawful appropriation.
“The prosecution has not been able to establish that the funds have been criminally appropriated,” he said.
Mr Botchway maintained that until the prosecution could demonstrate how the funds were unlawfully appropriated and identify their intended destination, a critical element of its case against the accused remained unproven.
