The Supreme Court has dismissed a motion seeking to prohibit Justice John Eugene Nyante Nyadu from hearing the case in which former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau (NSB), Kwabena Adu-Boahene is standing trial for allegedly causing a financial loss of GH₵49 million to the state. 

In a unanimous ruling today (October 29), the five-member panel, which had Justice Avril Lovelace Johnson presiding, dismissed the application because it had no merit. 

The court added that the application did not meet the required threshold for the prohibition of the trial judge.

Charges

Kwabena Adu-Boahene and Adjei-Boateng have been accused of moving GH₵49 million, meant for purchasing the software for the state, into their private company through a complex web of companies ultimately owned by ASL.

Adu-Boahene has pleaded not guilty to defrauding by false pretences, one count of wilfully causing financial loss to the state, one count of using public office for personal gain and one count of obtaining public property by false pretences, while his wife has been charged with collaboration to use public office for personal gain, conspiracy to launder money and money laundering.

They have both been admitted to bail by the trial court.

Motion 

On October 22, 2025, Adu-Boahene, through his lawyer, Samuel Atta Akyea, invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in a bid to prohibit the judge from hearing the case. 

Adu-Boahene claimed that Justice Nyadu had shown bias against him, alleging that the trial judge had already made decisions about the importance of evidence that could help his defence, which goes against the right to a fair trial as stipulated in the 1992 constitution.

He added that the judge's determination that certain evidence, which was being requested from the A-G, was not relevant suggested a likelihood of bias against him and the other defendants. 

Additionally, Adu-Boahene argued the court’s decision to hold proceedings from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., indicated an unusual interest in the case that could compromise the judge's impartiality.