High Court dismisses bid to strike out prosecution’s submissions in Adu-Boahene trial

The High Court in Accra has rejected an application by former National Signals Bureau boss Kwabena Adu-Boahene and his wife, Angela Adjei Boateng, seeking to remove portions of the prosecution’s written arguments opposing their submission of no case to answer.

In its ruling in the case, Republic v Adu-Boahene & 2 Others, the court maintained that it was not required to investigate whether the prosecution’s written address accurately represented the evidence presented during the trial.

The court explained that its duty was to determine the case based on testimony properly given by witnesses and exhibits formally admitted into evidence, rather than arguments contained in lawyers’ written submissions.

The application was filed by counsel for the accused persons, Samuel Atta Akyea, and opposed by Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai, who represented the prosecution.

Atta Akyea challenges prosecution’s arguments

Atta Akyea urged the court to strike out portions of the prosecution’s submissions filed on October 9, 2026, alleging that some of the arguments were unsupported by the trial record.

He argued that the prosecution had attributed statements to witnesses who, according to him, had not made those assertions while testifying. He also accused the prosecution of presenting the contents of an exhibit in a manner inconsistent with the rules of court, evidence and professional ethics.

The defence lawyer warned that retaining the disputed passages could mislead the court and potentially result in a miscarriage of justice, stressing that the liberty and presumption of innocence of the accused persons were at stake.

He argued that submissions based on reasonable inferences from evidence on record must be distinguished from arguments founded on evidence that was never presented in court.

Deputy Attorney-General rejects defence application

Dr Srem-Sai urged the court to dismiss the application, arguing that it did not fall within any recognised jurisdiction of the court.

He maintained that the judge could examine the existing trial record to determine whether the prosecution’s arguments were supported by the evidence, making it unnecessary to strike out the disputed passages.

The Deputy Attorney-General further argued that a lawyer’s written address could not be expunged simply because the opposing party disagreed with its account of the evidence.

He distinguished written submissions from pleadings and affidavits, which may be struck out under relevant procedural rules in appropriate circumstances.

According to him, written addresses are intended to assist the court in its deliberations and do not replace the judge’s duty to assess the evidence independently.

Dr Srem-Sai also described the application as an attempt to delay the proceedings and asked the court to reject it.

Court says disputed submissions carry no evidential weight

In explaining its decision, the court underscored the purpose of written addresses in judicial proceedings, describing them as arguments intended to persuade or assist a judge on the applicable law and facts.

It held that written submissions do not constitute evidence and that any reliance on material that was never presented at trial would have no probative value in determining the case.

The judge stressed that the court must base its decision exclusively on the testimony and evidence on record, alongside exhibits properly admitted during the proceedings.

The court added that any representation or misrepresentation of evidence in a lawyer’s written address would not determine the outcome of the trial, since the judge remained responsible for evaluating the actual evidence.

Responding to the defence’s request to expunge the disputed passages, the court said counsel had a means of addressing any alleged misrepresentation without requiring the judge to conduct a separate inquiry into the opposing party’s written submissions.

It noted that the defence had been given an opportunity to respond to the prosecution’s arguments and had exercised that right by filing a reply.

The judge said the appropriate course was for counsel to draw the court’s attention to any alleged inaccuracies, while leaving the court to assess the evidence properly before it.

The court further maintained that, whether or not the alleged misrepresentation was specifically raised, it was bound to rely only on evidence properly led at trial and exhibits admitted into the record in reaching a fair and just decision.

On that basis, the court concluded that it was not its responsibility to investigate whether the prosecution’s written address accurately reflected the trial evidence or to strike out portions of it on that ground.

The judge consequently declined to examine the substantive merits of the application and dismissed it.