Court refuses adjournment in Adu Boahene trial, rejects bid to await Supreme Court review

By News1

The Accra High Court has refused an application by former Signals Bureau Director-General Kwadwo Adu Boahene seeking to adjourn his trial pending a Supreme Court review of the legal vacation ruling.

Justice Francis Apanga Achibonga ruled that the earlier Supreme Court decision, though delivered by a single judge, remains binding until set aside, and that no rule requires trial proceedings to be suspended in such circumstances.

Counsel for Mr. Adu Boahene, Samuel Atta Akyea, had requested an adjournment until September 2, 2026, when a three-member panel of the Supreme Court is expected to hear a review application filed by Ofoase-Ayirebi MP Kojo Oppong Nkrumah regarding the continuation of selected criminal cases during the legal vacation.

- Advertisement -

Mr. Atta Akyea argued that the outcome could have a bearing on the ongoing trial.

Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Justice Srem-Sai opposed the application, noting that the prosecution had only one more day to close its case.

He further argued that the Supreme Court had already determined the substantive interlocutory application and that the mere filing of a review does not automatically suspend proceedings.

Mr. Adu Boahene is standing trial alongside his wife, Angela Adjei Boateng, Mildred Donkor, and Advantage Solutions Limited on 11 charges, including conspiracy, stealing, using public office for profit, money laundering, and causing financial loss to the state.

All accused persons have pleaded not guilty and are currently on bail.

- Advertisement -

The latest ruling follows earlier disagreements between defence and prosecution over the pace of the trial.

In July 2025, the court rejected a defence application seeking further disclosure of National Security operational account records dating back to 1992. Following that ruling, Mr. Atta Akyea accused the prosecution of withholding documents and said: “I won’t accept any ambulance trial.”

He has maintained that his approach is intended to protect due process and ensure a fair trial, arguing that the justice system should not create an accelerated track for selected cases while other matters continue under ordinary rules.

Share This Article
Leave a Comment