Lawyer Samuel Atta Akyea, counsel for former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene, has rejected allegations that documents presented by the defence in the ongoing trial were forged.
The development has added another layer of controversy to the high-profile case, which centres on allegations of financial misconduct involving a multimillion-dollar cybersecurity project.
Atta Akyea has strongly disputed claims that the defence relied on fabricated documents, insisting that the allegations are unfounded. He reportedly described the accusations as an attempt to create a misleading impression about the defence’s case.
The lawyer’s comments come as he continues to challenge aspects of the prosecution’s evidence and the manner in which some documents and witness statements have been presented before the Accra High Court.
The defence has repeatedly questioned the credibility and completeness of evidence presented by prosecution witnesses. During previous proceedings, Atta Akyea raised concerns about inconsistencies in records and documents tendered before the court.
The case involves Adu-Boahene, his wife Angela Adjei-Boateng and another accused person, who are facing charges connected to the alleged misuse of funds meant for a cybersecurity project.
According to the prosecution, about GH¢49.1 million, equivalent to approximately US$7 million, was government money earmarked for the procurement of a cyber defence system. The State alleges that the funds were diverted and subsequently used for purposes unrelated to the project.
The accused persons have pleaded not guilty and remain on bail. The defence has maintained that its clients committed no offences and intends to vigorously contest the prosecution’s allegations.
The forgery allegations have become significant because documents presented during a criminal trial can play an important role in establishing the credibility of either side’s case. Atta Akyea’s rejection of the claims therefore signals that the defence intends to challenge any suggestion that its evidence has been improperly created or altered.
The ongoing proceedings have also seen the defence closely examine prosecution witnesses over financial records, authorisation letters, statements made to the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), and other documents connected to the investigation.
In one earlier hearing, Atta Akyea questioned prosecution witness Mildred Donkor over discrepancies and omissions in financial records she had prepared. The witness acknowledged that some transactions appearing in bank statements were not captured in her records, although she disputed suggestions that the records had been fabricated.
The trial remains ongoing, meaning the allegations against the accused persons have not been established as facts. The court will ultimately determine the validity of the prosecution’s case and the defence’s responses based on the evidence presented.
As the proceedings continue, Atta Akyea’s latest response is expected to keep attention focused on the authenticity and relevance of documents being relied upon by both sides.
Watch the video below:
Source: Thepressradio.com
