The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed a motion filed by lawyers representing former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu Boahene, who sought to prohibit Justice John Eugene Nyante Nyadu from presiding over his ongoing criminal trial.
In a ruling delivered on October 29, 2025, a five-member panel led by Justice Avril Lovelace Johnson found the application lacked merit and did not meet the legal threshold required to remove a sitting trial judge.
Samuel Atta Akyea, lead counsel for Adu Boahene, expressed disappointment following the decision but indicated his client’s legal team remains committed to the case. The ruling means Justice Nyadu will continue hearing the high-profile corruption case involving allegations of financial mismanagement totalling GH₵49 million.
Adu Boahene and his co-accused, including his wife Angela Adjei Boateng, face multiple charges including defrauding by false pretences, wilfully causing financial loss to the state, using public office for personal gain, and obtaining public property by false pretences. They’ve all pleaded not guilty. The allegations centre on claims that funds meant for purchasing cyber defence software for the state were diverted into private companies through a complex network of entities ultimately owned by ASL.
The prohibition application, filed under Article 132 of the 1992 Constitution on October 22, 2025, alleged that Justice Nyadu had demonstrated what Adu Boahene’s legal team described as “continuing operative bias.” The defence claimed the trial judge had already made decisions regarding the relevance of evidence that could support their defence, undermining the constitutional right to a fair trial. They specifically pointed to the judge’s determination that certain evidence requested from the Attorney-General was irrelevant, suggesting predisposition against the defendants.
Among the concerns raised was Justice Nyadu’s decision to schedule proceedings from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., which Adu Boahene argued indicated an unusual interest in the case that could compromise judicial impartiality. The defence also accused the Attorney-General’s office of “stampeding” the judge by pressuring him to abridge timelines and deliver rulings aligned with prosecution requests.
The case has been marked by courtroom drama. Last week, Atta Akyea and his legal team staged a walkout after Justice Nyadu declined their request for an adjournment pending the Supreme Court’s decision on their prohibition motion. The judge had ruled that filing the Supreme Court application wasn’t sufficient grounds to suspend the ongoing trial. Undeterred by the walkout, Justice Nyadu ordered proceedings to continue and instructed Adu Boahene to either recall his lawyers or represent himself. The trial was subsequently adjourned to October 30, 2025.
Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling effectively clears the way for the trial to proceed without further delay. It’s a significant setback for Adu Boahene’s defence strategy, which had hoped to secure a different judge for the case. The decision also reinforces the high bar required to successfully challenge a judge’s impartiality in ongoing criminal proceedings.
The National Signals Bureau case has attracted considerable public attention given the substantial sums involved and the seniority of the accused. Adu Boahene served as Director-General of the NSB, a critical national security institution responsible for communications intelligence and cybersecurity operations. The allegations suggest that during his tenure, he orchestrated the diversion of millions meant for essential cyber defence systems into private accounts.
One of the originally accused persons, Mildred Donkor, has since become a prosecution witness after the Attorney-General withdrew charges against her. This development potentially strengthens the state’s case against the remaining defendants.
With the Supreme Court’s decision now final, attention shifts back to the High Court where Justice Nyadu will continue hearing evidence. The prosecution has indicated it will present testimony from officials at the National Signals Bureau who were involved in the financial transactions under scrutiny. The defence, meanwhile, must now focus on challenging the state’s evidence within the framework of the ongoing trial rather than seeking to change the presiding judge.
The case remains scheduled for continuation on October 30, with the court expected to hear from the prosecution’s second witness, who holds a senior position in the NSB’s finance directorate. How the defence team approaches the trial following this latest setback could prove crucial to the outcome of what’s shaping up to be one of Ghana’s most significant corruption cases in recent years.
