EOCO investigator admits no statement was taken from cyber-defence system supplier

Frank Marshall Cromwell, the Economic and Organised Crime Office’s (EOCO) lead investigator and fourth prosecution witness, has admitted that investigators did not engage either ISC Holdings Limited, the Israeli company identified as the supplier of the cyber-defence system at the centre of the GH¢49.1 million trial involving former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene, or the alleged purchaser, the National Security Council, to independently verify whether the system was purchased and delivered. Under cross-examination by counsel for the accused, Samuel Atta Akyea, on Tuesday, August 25, 2026, Cromwell told the court that although the National Signals Bureau had confirmed that it had and operated systems supplied by ISC Holdings, investigators did not establish the specific systems being operated by the security agency. “NSB confirmed to EOCO they have and operate systems from ISC Holdings but we did not enquire [about] the list of systems,” Cromwell told the court. He also confirmed that investigators did not personally engage the Office of the National Security Coordinator, identified as the purchaser, to establish whether the cyber-defence system had been delivered. Asked whether he had taken a statement from ISC Holdings Limited “touching on the critical matter of the delivery of the cyber-defence system at the heart of this case,” Cromwell answered: “No, my Lord.” When Akyea pointed out that EOCO had engaged UMB Bank and Fidelity Bank but had not spoken to either the purchaser or supplier, Cromwell said there was no need for further inquiry into the UMB transaction after investigators established that, following the transfer of the initial GH¢9.5 million, no further amount was sent to the ISC Holdings account. The defence counsel, however, pressed the investigator on whether EOCO had undertaken a comprehensive verification of the alleged delivery, particularly by engaging the company that was supposed to have supplied the system. Akyea put it to Cromwell that, “having not engaged ISC Holdings Limited, the seller, and the buyer, the Office of the National Security Coordinator, it lies in your mouth to say that the cyber-defence system was delivered.” Cromwell rejected the suggestion, responding: “Not so, my Lord.” Exhibit AJ challenged The cross-examination also focused on Exhibit AJ, an inventory response from the National Signals Bureau which EOCO relied on in concluding that the cyber-defence system was not listed in the Bureau’s inventory. Akyea challenged the investigator’s reliance on the document, arguing that it did not constitute a complete inventory of systems and equipment at the offices of the National Security Coordinator and the National Signals Bureau. Cromwell acknowledged that Exhibit AJ did not identify suppliers of equipment. “Exhibit AJ does not list suppliers of equipment; it is just a description of equipment available at the National Signals Bureau,” he said. The defence subsequently questioned whether EOCO had distinguished between “equipment” and the “systems” operated by the National Signals Bureau and allegedly supplied by ISC Holdings. Akyea suggested that EOCO’s request to the NSB had confused equipment with a system, arguing that the two were not necessarily the same. Cromwell said he was not aware of the distinction. The witness also admitted that investigators did not identify the specific officials within the national security establishment who allegedly received the systems supplied by ISC Holdings. Asked whether he had identified who within National Security received the systems, he answered: “No, my Lord.” He further confirmed that he had not spoken to individuals who managed or operated the systems allegedly supplied by ISC Holdings. Instead, he relied on documentary exchanges with the National Signals Bureau. The defence used the responses to challenge the scope of EOCO’s investigation, suggesting that the agency had relied largely on documentary evidence rather than physically verifying the existence or delivery of the system. Akyea asked whether, as part of a diligent investigation, Cromwell had applied to the National Security Coordinator to personally enter the National Security premises and inspect the systems allegedly supplied by ISC Holdings. Cromwell said his investigation focused on the “purported cyber-defence investigative system purchased by A1 when he was Director-General of the NSB” and that investigators had followed up with the agency to establish whether it had the system in its possession. He maintained that the responses obtained from the National Signals Bureau had been documented and submitted to the court. The court has adjourned the case to Wednesday, August 26, 2026, at 9:30 a.m.; Thursday, August 27, 2026, at 11:00 a.m.; and Tuesday, September 1, 2026, at 9:30 a.m.Source: www.ghanaweb.com
« Previous | Next »