Adu-Boahene Trial: Deputy AG must stop his misinformation and disinformation - Kwesi Botchway Jnr

Lawyer Kwesi Botchway Jnr has accused Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Dr Justice Srem-Sai of engaging in a misinformation and disinformation campaign against the accused persons in the ongoing trial of former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau (NSB), Kwabena Adu-Boahene and his wife, Angela Adjei Boateng.

According to him, comments made by the Deputy Attorney-General during an appearance on Joy News were inaccurate and inconsistent with evidence presented before the court.

In a statement via Facebook on August 18, 2026, Botchway said while the Deputy Attorney-General was entitled to comment on cases being prosecuted by his office, he found it troubling that some of the assertions made in the interview did not accord with the evidence on record.

“I watched the learned Deputy Attorney-General discuss the Adu Boahene case on PM Express,” he said.

“While it is within his right to speak about cases being prosecuted by his office, I find it troubling that some of the assertions he made are inaccurate and inconsistent with the evidence on record,” he added.

Botchway further accused the Deputy Attorney-General of contradicting a position he had consistently advanced against lawyers discussing the merits of ongoing cases.

“This is particularly concerning because the learned Deputy Attorney-General has consistently admonished lawyers against discussing the merits of cases they handle,” he said.

“Yet, in this instance, he went beyond commenting on the case and discussed its merits, demerits and even possible defences of the accused persons,” he added.

The lawyer said he was particularly concerned about the Deputy Attorney-General’s account of events surrounding a Universal Merchant Bank (UMB) account linked to BNC Operations, popularly referred to as the “Private BNC” account.

According to Botchway, the Deputy Attorney-General suggested that sometime in 2020, the suspicious nature of transactions on the account prompted the bank to file a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR), which subsequently led to the closure of the account.

“I find this assertion particularly strange because the learned Deputy Attorney-General was in court on 31 July 2026 when the prosecution’s fourth witness, EOCO investigator Frank Marshal Cromwell, was cross-examined extensively on this very issue,” he said.

“The evidence under oath tells a materially different story,” he added.

Botchway said Cromwell testified that the alleged STR was filed in 2020 and concerned a single transaction involving GH¢7.2 million.

He said the investigator testified that the transaction moved through the account of Kwabena Adu Boahene before the funds were subsequently transferred to the National Security Coordinator’s account at Fidelity Bank.

According to him, the investigator further testified that the funds were later transferred to ISC Holdings of Israel for the purchase of a cyber-defence system.

Botchway said the prosecution witness also testified that UMB did not consider the opening of the account suspicious.

He said the investigator further told the court that the bank did not identify the three cheques paid into the account as suspicious and did not identify any other transaction on the account as suspicious.

More significantly, Botchway said, the investigator admitted during cross-examination that he did not contact the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) to independently confirm whether the alleged STR had actually been filed and received.

“He also admitted that he could not produce any acknowledgement or evidence from the FIC confirming receipt of the alleged STR,” Mr Botchway said.

He argued that the investigator’s assertion concerning the existence of the STR was therefore based substantially on a screenshot rather than independent confirmation from the institution mandated to receive and investigate Suspicious Transaction Reports.

Botchway said the timeline surrounding the closure of the UMB account also raised questions about the Deputy Attorney-General’s account.

“Even more significantly, the investigator testified that the UMB account was closed on 2 March 2023, approximately three clear years after the alleged STR was filed in 2020,” he said.

“If the 2020 STR was what led to the closure of the account, one would expect some evidence establishing that causal connection,” he added.

He said the continued operation of the account for approximately three years after the alleged STR raised questions about any direct causal relationship between the report and the eventual closure of the account.

According to Botchway, the evidence before the court did not establish that the account was closed because of the alleged 2020 STR.

“The evidence before the court also does not show that the FIC investigated the account based on the supposed STR,” he said.

He said the cross-examination had exposed what he described as a significant evidential gap in the prosecution’s case.

“The cross-examination exposes a significant evidential gap: there was no suspicion regarding the opening of the account; no suspicion regarding the other transactions; no independent confirmation from the FIC that the alleged STR was received; and the account remained operational for about three years after the alleged STR,” Botchway said.

He therefore questioned why the Deputy Attorney-General would present the matter to the public in a manner that, in his view, appeared inconsistent with evidence given by the prosecution’s own witness under oath.

“It is therefore surprising that the learned Deputy Attorney-General would present the matter to the public in a manner that appears inconsistent with the evidence given by his own witness under oath,” he said.

The legal practitioner cautioned that public commentary on an ongoing prosecution should not be used to advance claims that are not supported by evidence before the court.

“Respectfully, public commentary on an ongoing prosecution should not become a vehicle for creating facts that the evidence before the court does not support,” he said.

He stressed that the public deserved accurate information about the proceedings and that the evidence presented in court should ultimately determine the facts of the case.

“The public deserves accurate information, and the record of proceedings must speak for itself,” Botchway said.

AM