Court dismisses Adu-Boahene’s bid to strike out portions of prosecution’s reply to his no-case submission

The Accra High Court has refused a request by former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene and his co-accused to expunge parts of the prosecution’s written arguments in the ongoing criminal trial. The defence had asked the court to remove sections of the prosecution’s response to the accused persons’ submission of no case to answer, alleging that some passages relied on statements witnesses had not made and evidence that was not established during the trial.

In dismissing the application, the court said it was not required to conduct a separate inquiry into the accuracy of lawyers’ written arguments or strike them out because one side disputed their account of the evidence. The judge emphasised that the court’s decision must be guided by testimony given in court and exhibits formally admitted into evidence, rather than claims made by either side in written submissions.

Defence counsel Samuel Atta Akyea, who filed the application, argued that portions of the prosecution’s submissions dated October 9, 2026, did not reflect the proceedings. He maintained that allowing the disputed passages to stand could mislead the court and undermine a fair determination of the case. He also argued that legal submissions should be based on evidence properly before the court and should not attribute statements to witnesses who had not made them.

Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai opposed the application, contending that the court had no general jurisdiction to strike out parts of a lawyer’s written address merely because the opposing party challenged their accuracy. He argued that the judge could examine the trial record and assess the prosecution’s arguments against the evidence without expunging any portion of the submissions.

He further maintained that written addresses assist the court but do not replace the evidence itself. The court agreed that written arguments do not constitute evidence and said any reliance on material that was not established at trial would carry no evidential weight in determining the case. It also noted that the defence had an opportunity to address the alleged inaccuracies in its reply to the prosecution’s submissions.

In the court’s view, counsel’s responsibility was to draw attention to any disputed representation and allow the judge to assess the actual record. The judge said the court would rely only on evidence properly presented and admitted during the trial, regardless of whether either party had accurately characterised that evidence in its written address.

On that basis, the court declined to examine the substantive merits of the defence application and dismissed it. The ruling concerns the disputed written submissions and does not, by itself, determine whether the accused persons have a case to answer.