The High Court in Accra has dismissed a defence application seeking to expunge portions of the prosecution’s written arguments in the criminal trial of former National Signals Bureau boss Kwabena Adu-Boahene, his wife, Angela Adjei Boateng, and another accused person.
The application, filed by counsel for the accused persons, Samuel Atta Akyea, challenged portions of the prosecution’s written submissions opposing the defence’s submission of no case, alleging that they relied on evidence that was not presented during the trial.
However, the court ruled that it was not required to investigate the accuracy of counsel’s written arguments or strike out disputed portions on the grounds that they allegedly misrepresented the evidence.
In its decision in the case, Republic v Adu-Boahene & 2 Others, the court emphasised that its determination must be based on evidence properly presented by witnesses and exhibits formally admitted into the record.
Mr Atta Akyea had asked the court to strike out portions of the prosecution’s submissions filed on October 9, 2026, arguing that they attributed statements to witnesses who had not made them during their testimony.
He also alleged that the prosecution had presented the contents of an exhibit in a manner inconsistent with the record and applicable rules on evidence and professional ethics.
The defence argued that allowing the disputed submissions to stand could mislead the court and risk a miscarriage of justice, particularly given the implications of the criminal proceedings for the accused persons’ liberty.
Mr Atta Akyea maintained that legal arguments based on reasonable inferences from evidence on record should be distinguished from submissions relying on evidence that was never presented.
Prosecution argues court lacks jurisdiction
Opposing the application, Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai argued that the defence had not established any recognised basis for the court to strike out portions of the prosecution’s written address.
He submitted that the court could independently examine the trial record to determine whether the prosecution’s arguments were supported by the evidence, making a separate application unnecessary.
Dr Srem-Sai further argued that written submissions differed from pleadings and affidavits, which could be struck out under applicable procedural rules in appropriate circumstances.
He maintained that written addresses were intended to assist the court in interpreting the law and evaluating the facts, rather than serve as evidence in themselves.
The Deputy Attorney-General also described the defence application as an attempt to delay proceedings and urged the court to dismiss it.
Court says evidence, not submissions, will determine case
In explaining its decision, the court stressed that written addresses were intended to assist and persuade the judge on the applicable law and the facts established during the trial.
It held that arguments founded on evidence that did not exist on the record had no probative value and could not determine the outcome of the case.
The judge explained that the responsibility for evaluating the evidence rested with the court, which was required to rely on witness testimony and exhibits properly admitted into evidence.
The court added that even where counsel made inaccurate representations about the evidence in a written address, the judge remained responsible for assessing the actual trial record before reaching a decision.
It further noted that the defence had an opportunity to respond to the prosecution’s arguments and had exercised that right by filing a reply.
According to the court, the appropriate course was for counsel to draw attention to any alleged misrepresentation in their response, rather than seek a separate inquiry aimed at striking out the disputed portions.
The judge maintained that the court was obliged to reach a fair and just conclusion based solely on the evidence properly presented during the trial, regardless of whether either party drew attention to alleged inaccuracies in written submissions.
On that basis, the court declined to examine the merits of the defence’s allegations against the prosecution’s written address and dismissed the application.
