Honorary Vice President of IMANI-Africa, Bright Simons, has cast serious doubt on the defence put forward by former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General, Kwabena Adu-Boahene, regarding the diversion of funds intended for the purchase of spyware in a controversial GH¢49 million deal.

In a detailed analysis of the national security architecture, operations, and expenditure within the framework of Ghana’s laws, Mr. Simons asserted that the explanations offered by the former security chief were untenable.

Mr. Adu-Boahene, who is currently on trial for allegedly misappropriating GH¢49 million, claimed that a portion of the funds was distributed to opposition parties for "covert national security operations".

In a memo addressed to the National Security Coordinator, the former spy chief stated that the substantial sums in question included GH¢8.3 million for "communications equipment" for an opposition party and nearly GH¢1 million in payments to legislators for passing key security laws.

READ ALSO: Ex-NSB boss’ prosecution must proceed to uncover any rogue operation – Bright Simons

Delivering his assessment of the development on JoyNews’ Newsfile on Saturday, Mr. Simons described the former spy chief's actions as “a massive breach of our national security system, and we must not allow it at all.”

To reinforce his argument, he explained: “If it is necessary to spy on people because some of them are terrorists, some are criminals etc and we decided to buy it and we allocated $7million, you cannot allocate one point something million dollars to the company, refuse to pay the rest, and so therefore the country is denied the benefit of the transaction and for over four years, claims to have diverted the money for other purposes without any trail.”

Mr. Simons stressed that such conduct “cannot happen in our financial laws, and it is not even a reasonable explanation to give.”

He further argued that an operation of this magnitude could not have taken place without the knowledge of the President, the Minister, and the National Security Council. He added that the Attorney General’s decision to proceed with legal action indicated significant breaches in protocol and accountability.

“If that was the case, as in an authorised reassignment of the budget, the person who will do it is the Minister of Finance, acting through the President, quietly in the National Security Councils but will have the records so the Attorney General of the Republic, who has all of these and is the ear of the president, will not be blind to these matters.”

Mr. Simons emphasised the need for documentation and traceability of every single payment, especially for the sake of accountability and fighting corruption.

“If they are authorised ops, notwithstanding the fact that they are covert or they are black ops, using the idiom in the United States, they will still be recorded and they will still be matters that are subject to the jurisdiction of the national security council.”

He concluded by highlighting the internal awareness of the threat corruption poses to national security:

“The national security itself knows that corruption is a critical problem and that they will set up their own systems appropriately to manage this. Therefore, if there was a sense that corruption was undermining national security itself.”