The Accra High Court has dismissed an application by former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwabena Adu Boahene and his co-accused seeking to strike out portions of the prosecution’s submissions allegedly containing fabricated evidence and statements wrongly attributed to witnesses.
The court, however, ruled that written submissions do not constitute evidence and that its determination of the criminal proceedings must be based solely on testimony and exhibits properly admitted during the trial.
Justice Francis Apangabuno Achibonga, a Justice of the Court of Appeal sitting as an additional High Court judge at Specialised Court 1, delivered the ruling on Thursday, October 29, 2026.
According to the certified court proceedings, the judge declined to investigate the defence’s allegations of misrepresentation within the application, holding that counsel had already exercised their right to challenge the disputed submissions through a reply filed on October 19.
The ruling consequently leaves the defence’s allegations unresolved, without establishing whether the prosecution had relied on fabricated or non-existent evidence.
Defence Alleges Misrepresentation of Evidence
The application was filed in the criminal proceedings involving Mr Adu Boahene, Angela Adjei Boateng and Advantage Solutions Limited.
Counsel for the accused persons, Samuel Atta Akyea, sought an order striking out portions of the prosecution’s written submissions filed on October 9, 2026, in opposition to the defence’s submission of no case to answer.
He argued that the prosecution had introduced material unsupported by the evidence on record, attributed statements to witnesses who had not made them and misstated the contents of an exhibit.
Mr Atta Akyea maintained that allowing such material to remain in the prosecution’s submissions could prejudice the accused persons and potentially result in a miscarriage of justice.
He further argued that the prosecution had not filed an affidavit opposing the factual allegations contained in the defence’s supporting affidavit.
Relying on judicial authorities, he contended that the failure to challenge those allegations meant they should be treated as admitted.
The defence also invoked the court’s responsibility to protect the integrity of its proceedings, arguing that there was a distinction between drawing inferences from admitted evidence and introducing matters unsupported by the trial record.
Mr Atta Akyea insisted that the court had an obligation to prevent written submissions from becoming a means of introducing material that had not been properly established through evidence.
Prosecution Opposes Application
Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai, representing the Republic, opposed the application on legal grounds, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to strike out portions of a lawyer’s written submissions merely because the opposing party disputed their accuracy.
He maintained that written addresses were intended to assist the court in evaluating the evidence and applicable law, rather than constitute evidence themselves.
Dr Srem-Sai argued that the proper approach was for the court to assess the prosecution’s arguments against the trial record and disregard any submission unsupported by the evidence.
He also rejected the suggestion that the absence of an affidavit in opposition automatically established the defence’s allegations.
Citing judicial authorities, he argued that factual allegations could be challenged through evidence on record without necessarily filing a counter-affidavit.
The Deputy Attorney-General further submitted that the defence had already been given an opportunity to respond to the prosecution’s submissions and had filed a 25-page reply.
He described the application as inconsistent with established criminal procedure and argued that it risked delaying the court’s determination of the submission of no case to answer.
Written Submissions Are Not Evidence — Court
In delivering his ruling, Justice Achibonga emphasised the distinction between legal arguments presented by counsel and evidence properly admitted during trial.
“In my view, a written address is a document filed by Counsel in a matter to assist or persuade the Judge on the law and the facts,” the judge stated.
He explained that a written address could not substitute for the evidence on record and that submissions relying on non-existent evidence would have no probative value.
The judge further held that the court must base its decisions on the evidence properly presented during proceedings, regardless of how counsel characterise that evidence in written arguments.
“A judge shall therefore, in deciding a matter, rely solely on the evidence or testimony of witnesses that is on record and exhibits which have been properly admitted,” the ruling stated.
According to the court, any misrepresentation of evidence in written submissions would not determine the outcome of the proceedings because the judge was required to evaluate the actual trial record.
Court Acknowledges Defence’s Objections
Justice Achibonga acknowledged that the defence had extensively challenged the prosecution’s alleged reliance on non-existent evidence in paragraph three of its reply filed on October 19, 2026.
He explained that counsel had a responsibility to draw the court’s attention to any alleged misrepresentation or reliance on evidence that did not exist.
The judge noted that the defence had fulfilled that responsibility by identifying the disputed matters in its reply.
He nevertheless declined to undertake a separate inquiry into whether the prosecution’s written submissions accurately reflected the evidence.
“In sum, I hold the view that it is not the duty of the court to inquire into whether or not the written submission filed by Counsel is a true reflection of the evidence led or that Counsel relied on non-existent evidence and to strike out same,” the judge ruled.
He added that the court’s responsibility was to rely on the properly admitted evidence and exhibits when determining the issues before it.
Application Dismissed Without Determining Allegations
Concluding his ruling, Justice Achibonga stated that he was unable to examine the merits of the application and dismissed it.
“I am therefore unable to go into the merits of the application and for the above reasons, the application is dismissed,” he stated.
The decision means that the defence did not obtain the order sought to remove the disputed portions of the prosecution’s written submissions.
However, the dismissal does not constitute a finding that the prosecution fabricated evidence, nor does it establish that the defence’s allegations were unfounded.
Rather, the court’s ruling makes clear that its determination of the underlying criminal proceedings must rest on the evidence properly admitted during trial, not on disputed factual assertions contained in counsel’s written addresses.
The ruling comes as the court considers the accused persons’ submission of no case to answer, which challenges whether the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to require them to open their defence.
