…AG’s Case In Crisis
The prosecution in the ongoing trial of former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene has, through the witnesses it called before the Accra High Court, failed to establish a direct, property-by-property financial link between the alleged GH¢49.1 million and the numerous properties and vehicles it has attributed to the accused, following the closure of its case.
Through the witnesses it called before the Accra High Court, the prosecution has failed to show how identifiable portions of the alleged GH¢49.1 million were used to acquire the specific properties and luxury vehicles cited in its case, despite making the alleged acquisitions a major part of the case against Adu-Boahene and his wife, Angela Adjei Boateng.
The prosecution placed several properties, including houses at Mayfair Estates, Oyarifa and properties in London, as well as vehicles among others, before the Court as part of its case. However, its final witness, (PW4) EOCO investigator Frank Marshall Cromwell, was unable to identify the specific portions of the alleged GH¢49.1 million used to acquire those assets.
Evidential gap?
The evidential gap became particularly stark during the testimony of the prosecution’s final witness, EOCO lead investigator Frank Marshall Cromwell, who, under sustained cross-examination by lead Counsel for the accused, Samuel Atta Akyea, on Tuesday, September 8, 2026, the final day of his questioning, admitted that there were no ownership documents before the Court for some of the properties and that asset investigations remained ongoing in respect of others.
Frank Marshall Cromwell further admitted that, in the case of Doorchester Heights, “there was no direct payments from accounts analyzed” towards its acquisition, while he could not identify the amount of the alleged GH¢49.1 million used to acquire the vehicles frozen in connection with the case, telling the Court: “I do not recall.”
The testimony has raised a fundamental question over the prosecution’s property allegations: whether the State can establish the required financial nexus between the alleged GH¢49.1 million and the specific assets it says were acquired with the funds, rather than merely showing that properties were allegedly connected to the accused persons.
The issue is particularly significant because the Attorney-General, Dr Dominic Ayine, at his March 24, 2025 press conference, alleged that the GH¢49.1 million had been diverted from an account associated with the National BNC and subsequently used for personal expenses, investments and acquisitions, including real estate and luxury vehicles of the accused.
Those allegations were subsequently placed before the Court as part of the prosecution’s case.
Financial trail missing
Yet, when Mr Atta Akyea took Cromwell through the prosecution’s own Exhibits, the investigator was unable to provide a corresponding financial trail for several of the properties and assets.
On properties at Belsize Park, Doorchester Heights and Kobby Keach Hotel, the witness conceded that the prosecution had not placed ownership documents before the Court in respect of some of them and, when asked to trace the alleged GH¢49.1 million to their acquisition, relied on the fact that asset investigations were ongoing.
(Q) Counsel Atta Akyea asked: “Can you point to any part of the alleged 49.1 Million Ghana Cedis that you can trace to the purported acquisition of Belsize Park and Kobby Keach Hotel?”
(A) Frank Marshall Cromwell answered: “As I indicated, asset investigations is ongoing in respect of these properties.”
The defence pressed further on Doorchester Heights.
(Q) Counsel Atta Akyea: “So can you point to any part of the alleged 49.1 Million Ghana Cedis that you can trace to the purported acquisition of Doorchester Heights?”
(A) Frank Marshall Cromwell answered: “In all documents provided before this court, there was no direct payments from accounts analyzed towards Doorchester Heights but I can recall statements provided by PW3 in respect of a project in Kumasi.”
Vehicle link missing
The prosecution’s difficulty was even more pronounced in relation to the vehicles.
(Q) Counsel Atta Akyea asked: “Which part of the 49.1 Million Ghana Cedis did you trace to the acquisition of these vehicles?”
(A) Frank Marshall Cromwell answered: “I do not recall.
And when Mr Atta Akyea asked the investigator to use the prosecution’s Exhibits to demonstrate how much of the alleged GH¢49.1 million had been spent on the vehicles or car-rental business, Frank Marshall Cromwell again conceded: “I do not recall from my Exhibits U and Y directly connecting dissipation of funds to vehicles frozen and suspected to be stolen vehicles.”
The evidence also failed to provide the financial figures alleged in relation to other uses of the money.
Asked how much of the GH¢49.1 million was applied to the fertilizer business, Frank Marshall Cromwell answered: “There is no such estimate in my Exhibit Y.”
Treasury Bills unproven
On the alleged treasury-bill investments, he was equally unable to point to evidence in the prosecution’s financial chart.
(Q) Counsel Atta Akyea asked: “In the statement of accompanying facts, it is alleged that the 49.1 Million Ghana Cedis was applied to treasury bills, can you point to any evidence to treasury bill acquisitions by A1 (Adu-Boahene) and A2 (Angela Adjei-Boateng) from the 49.1 Million Ghana Cedis?”
(A) Frank Marshall Cromwell answered: “On Exhibit Y, there is no such mention of it.”
And when asked about Exhibit U, his response was: “Exhibit U have fixed deposits rather.”
No corresponding transaction trail
The cross-examination therefore placed the prosecution’s financial case under considerable strain, particularly because the alleged GH¢49.1 million is at the centre of the charges, while several of the acquisitions highlighted by the State were not matched by a corresponding transaction trail in Exhibits U, Y and Y1.
Cromwell did maintain that he had identified a GH¢1.5 million transfer to Mayfair Estates traceable to BNC Communications Bureau Limited through Advantage Solutions. But that evidence did not, on its own, establish that identifiable portions of the remaining alleged GH¢49.1 million were used to acquire each of the other properties and vehicles cited by the prosecution.
That distinction became critical as Mr Atta Akyea challenged the investigator over the State’s freezing orders. The witness, PW4, admitted that searches at the Lands Commission and other relevant authorities were still part of the ongoing asset investigations.
The defence also confronted him with the London properties, which had featured prominently in the Attorney-General’s accompanying facts.
(Q) Counsel Atta Akyea asked: “So what it is the purchase price of the London Property?”
(A) Frank Marshall Cromwell answered: “Offhead, I do not have the value.”
The witness further acknowledged that the asset investigation documents relating to the London properties had not been made available to the Court, although he said information had been obtained showing that two London properties were registered in the name of Vertex Solutions, owned by A2.
Vehicle funds untraced
The prosecution’s case over the frozen vehicles similarly remained without a specific financial figure linking them to the alleged GH¢49.1 million.
Taken together, the evidence from the prosecution’s final witness leaves the Court with a clear distinction between alleging ownership or connection to an asset and proving that the alleged GH¢49.1 million was actually used to acquire that asset.
And it is precisely that financial nexus that the defence repeatedly demanded during cross-examination.
With the prosecution now having closed its case after about 18 months of proceedings, the Court will ultimately have to determine whether the evidence led by the State establishes the charges, not merely the allegations made at the Attorney-General’s March 2025 press conference.
In a related development, it emerged in court that the owners of Kobby Keach Hotel in Kumasi, one of the properties presented by the prosecution as owned by Adu-Boahene, had sued EOCO in the High Court for freezing their property and for wrongful attribution of ownership of the said property.
Ruling on submission of no case
Accordingly, the presiding judge, Justice Francis Apangabuno Achibonga, has yet to determine whether the prosecution’s evidence meets the applicable legal threshold. He has directed the defence to file its submission of no case to answer by September 25, 2026. The State, represented by the Attorney-General, will have 14 days from the date of service of the defence’s submissions to file its response, while the defence will have a further seven days to reply.
The Judge has subsequently adjourned the matter to November 5, 2026, when it is expected to rule on the defence’s submission of no case to answer.
