Samuel Atta Akyea, lawyer for Kwabena Adu-Boahene
The underlying reasons behind the novel, dramatic courtroom exit of Samuel Atta Akyea, Senior Counsel for Kwabena Adu-Boahene, former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau (NSB), have now come to light through a new filing before the Supreme Court of Ghana.
The application, filed Ex parte by Adu-Boahene and his wife, Angela Adjei Boateng, seeks to restrain Justice John Eugene Nyante Nyadu, the presiding judge of the High Court (General Jurisdiction “10”), from continuing to hear their ongoing criminal trial.
The motion, brought under Article 132 of the 1992 Constitution and Section 5 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), alleges “continuing operative bias” and “prejudgment” on the part of the trial judge.
In their motion titled Republic v. Kwabena Adu-Boahene, Angela Adjei Boateng, Mildred Donkor, and Advantage Solutions Ltd (Suit No. CR/0418/2025), the applicants set out four principal grounds to support their claim of bias.
They allege that, the presiding judge has demonstrated a “continuing operative bias” by predetermining the relevance of exculpatory evidence, contrary to Article 19 of the Constitution and precedents established in Republic v. Baffoe-Bonnie & 4 Others [2017–2021] 1 SCGLR 327.
His Lordship’s determination to proceed with the trial despite having declared certain exculpatory evidence as irrelevant creates a real likelihood of bias.
The Attorney-General’s alleged influence over the judge’s scheduling and rulings amounts to undue interference and “stampeding” of the judicial process.
The judge’s decision to sit for extended hours (9 a.m. to 4 p.m.) and add extra sitting days on the case allegedly indicates a “special extrajudicial interest” in the matter.
In a 42-paragraph affidavit attached to the application, Mr. Adu-Boahene outlines a series of incidents that he claims demonstrate judicial prejudice and procedural irregularities, beginning with their first court appearance on April 30, 2025.
According to the affidavit, he and his co-accused were summoned by officials of the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) for a 2:00 p.m. meeting.
After waiting for hours, they were “escorted under protest” to the High Court without prior notice, where they found Attorney-General Dominic Akuritinga Ayine and Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Justice Srem Sai already present.
The defense team contends that the charge sheet and accompanying facts were served on them in court only minutes before the proceedings began — a move they describe as procedurally irregular and “ambush-style.”
Adu-Boahene further alleges that the presiding judge condoned these procedural issues and that several of his rulings indicate predetermination.
Excerpts from the judge’s rulings, attached as Exhibit KAA 7, include remarks describing defense requests for further disclosures as attempts to “stall proceedings” and labelling certain evidence as “irrelevant.”
The affidavit also highlights what the applicants call “stampeding” by the Attorney-General’s office, alleging that the Deputy Attorney-General pressured the judge to abridge his own timelines and deliver rulings in line with prosecution requests.
They claim that Justice Nyadu “acceded to these pressures” by rescheduling his rulings to dates favoured by the prosecution, allegedly at the cost of judicial independence.
The motion also raises concerns about Justice Nyadu’s decision to sit for unusually long sessions on the case, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., including additional days beyond the court’s typical schedule.
According to the applicants, such conduct suggests undue prioritisation of their case, which they interpret as “special interest” inconsistent with impartial adjudication.
The newly filed Supreme Court documents now shed light on the dramatic walkout by Atta Akyea during proceedings last week.
Sources close to the defense say the lawyer’s decision was driven by concerns over what he perceived as violations of fair trial principles and judicial impartiality, all of which are now formally documented in the Supreme Court application.
The Supreme Court is expected to fix a date for hearing the motion for prohibition in the coming weeks.
