The Attorney-General’s own prosecution witness, Edith Ruby Opokua Adumuah, Head of Finance at the National Signals Bureau (NSB), has undercut key pillars of the State’s case in the ongoing Kwabena Adu-Boahene trial after confirming in open court that large volumes of operational cash, often transported in “GhanaMustGo” bags, were lawfully moved, duly authorised, and consistent with longstanding National Security procedures.
Testifying under cross-examination by lead defence counsel Samuel Atta Akyea at the High Court (General Jurisdiction 10) on Wednesday, December 10, 2025, Madam Adumuah affirmed that the cash movements and cheque preparations attributed to the first accused, Kwabena Adu-Boahene, fell squarely within the operational architecture of the then Bureau of National Communications (BNC) and now the NSB, contradicting the Attorney-General’s public claims of diversion and theft.
Witness confirms preparing cheques and moving cash for operations
Atta Akyea confronted the witness with portions of her own testimony.
“On the 17th October 2025, at pages 12, 13, 21, and 22, you testified about your preparing three cheques for signature. Do you want to recant your testimony or affirm it?” he asked.
Madam Adumuah did not retreat: “I confirm it, My Lord.”
The defence counsel continued:
“Do you also confirm that you made these cheques into the operational accounts of National Security…?”
The witness replied: “My Lord, I paid into BNC operations.”
When asked where, she answered plainly: “Universal Merchant Bank.”
Witness: Adu-Boahene sent me to collect cash from UMB
In a key admission that undermined the prosecution’s claim of unauthorised cash handling, she told the Court:
“My Lord, I remember that Kwabena Adu-Boahene used to send me to the Universal Merchant Bank to collect cash.”
She affirmed that she indeed fetched monies from Universal Merchant Bank “Yes, my Lord.”
The Deputy Attorney-General attempted to intervene, but the trial judge interjected, seeking clarity.
Noting confusion over whether the witness previously said she did not know the account involved, the judge ordered a recess to review the recordings.
Judge rejects attempt to shield witness: “There is nothing like in-camera answers”
A lighter but telling moment arose when counsel sought an explanation on the packaging of cash used for operational purposes.
When the judge asked whether counsel expected her to demonstrate “by hands” or whether the Court should have brought real “GhanaMustGo” bags for illustration, Madam Adumuah finally clarified:
“My Lord, usually it used to be in ‘GhanaMustGo’ bags.”
The Court insisted she answer directly, ruling:
“You can’t ask questions. You are in the box now. You have to answer the questions you’re asked.
There is nothing like in-camera answering… we cannot create privileges here.”
Operational Funds commonly moved in ‘GhanaMustGo’ Bags — Witness confirms
Atta Akyea pressed on:
“Can you demonstrate to the Honourable Court the sizes of these ‘GhanaMustGo’ bags?”
Madam Adumuah answered:
“My Lord, it depends on the denomination.”
Counsel followed up:
“You’ll agree with me that the smaller the denomination, the larger the ‘GhanaMustGo’ bag.”
“Yes, my Lord.”
He then put the pivotal question to her:
“Per the nature of your work, there’s nothing wrong in delivering Special Operations cash in big ‘GhanaMustGo’ bags?”
The witness agreed: “Yes, my Lord.”
Defence counters AG’s claim of diversion
Having established that the practice is standard within National Security operations, Atta Akyea asked:
“Then it is equally true that the monies in the ‘GhanaMustGo’ bag you lift from your banks to offices are not diverted or stolen monies?”
The witness affirmed unequivocally: “Yes, my Lord.”
Operations involve cash payments to unknown persons
In further testimony that dismantled the State’s narrative, the witness disclosed that some operations required disbursing money to unnamed individuals:
“There have been moments that I have performed Special Operations duties… by doling out cash to unknown persons.”
She also confirmed that bank bullion vans do not deliver cash to National Security offices, a point that reinforces the necessity of manual cash movement.
National Security is sometimes “Bank-strapped” for operations
When counsel raised the notion that operational funds are unlimited, asking:
“Are you telling the Honourable Court that when it relates to operational funds, they’re unlimited. It is true that sometimes, relation to Special Operational funds, the National Security is bank-strapped”
Madam Opokua Adumuah, responded: “Yes my Lord”
She further confirmed she prepares the budgets for National Security, including compensation, goods & services and capital expenditure.
Cross-examination that reshaped the narrative
The cumulative effect of the testimony was unmistakable:
One, the witness confirmed preparing cheques for operational accounts.
Two, she confirmed physically collecting cash from Universal Merchant Bank on the instructions of Adu-Boahene.
Three, she confirmed operational funds are handled in “GhanaMustGo” bags due to the nature of the work.
Four, she confirmed delivering cash to unnamed operational actors.
Five, she denied any suggestion that such funds were stolen or diverted.
Under sustained questioning, Madam Adumuah confirmed preparing three cheques for operational purposes, acknowledged depositing funds into BNC’s operational account at UMB Bank, and admitted that she routinely fetched large sums of cash from the bank at the instruction of the accused.
She further conceded that Special Operations funds at National Security are predominantly handled in cash and often transported in large “Ghana Must Go” bags.
The defence then pressed her on a crucial point: whether the monies she handled for National Security operations had been diverted or stolen in any form. She answered unequivocally: “Yes, my Lord,” agreeing that the funds she moved from bank to office were legitimate operational monies and not diverted or stolen.
Akyea also established that it was standard practice for the witness to distribute cash to unknown operatives as part of Special Operations assignments, that banks did not use bullion vans to deliver money to National Security, and that operational funds were sometimes constrained due to delayed budgetary releases, an admission that hinted at the routine use of non-traditional funding channels.
It was at this point that the defence shifted to National Security budgeting procedures, further exposing gaps in the State’s diversion theory.
“You confirm to this court that you’re in the business of preparing the budget of National Security?” Akyea asked.
“Yes, my Lord,” Madam Adumuah replied.
Pressed to outline the components of such budgets, she listed compensation, goods and services, and capital expenditure. She acknowledged that the releases for these budget lines often arrive late—sometimes only in March or April—thereby restricting the bureau’s ability to finance critical operations in real time.
“And on account of late budgetary releases, National Security may not have the requisite funds for its operations?”
“Yes, my Lord.”
The defence then pushed further, suggesting that operational exigencies sometimes require the sourcing of funds outside official government releases.
The witness initially hesitated, attributing such decisions to higher authority, but conceded that her accounting records often reflected inflows that did not originate from regular governmental channels.
“But certainly, your accounting sight, manifest to you before your budgetary releases, are outside governmental sources. Is that not so?”
After a brief pause, she answered:
“Yes, my Lord.”
The revelation reinforced the defence’s argument that the movement of funds, whether through BNC accounts or in large “Ghana Must Go” bags, was part of National Security’s unconventional but established operational framework, rather than a scheme for private enrichment.
Following the exchanges, the presiding judge, John Eugene Nyante Nyadu, adjourned the matter, ruling:
“Suit is adjourned to 11th December 2025 at 9 a.m.”
