COURT OF APPEAL DISMISSES ADU BOAHENE’S PLEA TO QUASH HIGH COURT RULING
Appellate Court Upholds Decision Denying Access to Broad National Security Accounts
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an application by lawyers for former National Signals Bureau Director, Kwabena Adu Boahene, and his wife, which sought to overturn a High Court decision that refused their bid for extensive disclosures from the Attorney General.
The defense team, led by Samuel Atta Akyea, had filed a motion in July demanding the full disclosure of National Security operational accounts from 1992 to the present day a period spanning the tenures of five Presidents: Jerry John Rawlings, John Agyekum Kufuor, Atta Mills, John Dramani Mahama, and Nana Akufo-Addo.
Atta Akyea argued that the Attorney General had selectively disclosed matters related to national security to advance its case while withholding crucial details, thereby necessitating their motion for broader access.
However, the Deputy Attorney-General, Dr. Justice Srem Sai, strongly opposed the motion, contending that the vast scope of information requested was irrelevant to the specific case against the former director. Dr. Srem Sai maintained that the case centers on the allegation that the accused persons moved funds from a specific government account into a private company they had incorporated within a particular period, and not a general audit of national security spending.
The High Court, presided over by Justice Nyantei, had earlier agreed with the prosecution and dismissed the application for further disclosure.
Appealing this decision at the Court of Appeal on Monday, Samuel Atta Akyea insisted that withholding the relevant pages was damaging to his clients’ case and infringed upon their rights.
Despite these arguments, a panel of three justices dismissed the application. The panel indicated that the prosecution’s case must not be disrupted by the appellate court, especially when the defense had failed to prove any compelling circumstances that warranted a stay of proceedings or the overturning of the High Court’s decision.
This ruling represents a significant setback for the defense, narrowing the scope of their preparatory inquiries as the substantive case proceeds.
Source:NKONKONSA.com
