Supreme Court Dismisses Adu Boahene’s Bid to Remove Trial Judge Over Alleged Bias and Missing Bank Statement Pages

The Supreme Court has unanimously rejected a prohibition application filed by the defense team of former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General Kwabena Adu Boahene, seeking to bar High Court Judge John Eugene Nyante Nyadu from presiding over his ongoing criminal trial due to alleged bias and procedural irregularities, including 88 missing pages from a key bank statement.

The 5-0 ruling, delivered on Tuesday by a panel led by Justice Agnes Dordzie, deemed the application “without merit” and lacking evidence of a “real danger of bias.” Defense counsel Samuel Atta Akyea, representing Adu Boahene and his co-accused, argued that the judge’s denial of disclosure for the missing pages—allegedly containing exculpatory evidence of legitimate deposits—violated fair trial rights under Article 19 of the 1992 Constitution. Akyea contended that the bank’s full statement starts at page 1 and resumes at page 90, with pages 2-89 (88 pages) “missing, removed, or vanished,” potentially showing funds used for loans to national security rather than theft.

The prosecution, led by Attorney General Dr. Dominic Ayine, countered that the judge correctly deemed the pages irrelevant and that the accused could access their own records, despite the accounts being frozen. Ayane’s case alleges Adu Boahene diverted GH¢49.1 million from NSB accounts to private entities via false pretenses, causing financial loss to the state.

Akyea cited three grounds for the application:

The judge’s refusal to order disclosure without viewing the pages undermines defense rights, forcing an “adjudicator committed to denying exculpatory evidence.”

The judge repeatedly accedes to prosecution requests for earlier rulings, suggesting bias and unpreparedness.

Premature views on evidence, unusual trial schedules (9 a.m.-4 p.m. Thursdays/Fridays), and extrajudicial interest create a “real possibility of bias” per the test in Republic v. Eugene Baffoe Bonnie.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, held that the application failed to meet the threshold for prohibition under Article 132 and Section 5 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), dismissing it as an abuse of process. Akyea expressed disappointment but vowed to continue the defense, stating, “The decision does not move me—we fight on for justice.”