Paragraph 1: The Core Allegation of Misinformation
Lawyer Kwesi Botchway Jnr has publicly accused Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Dr Justice Srem-Sai of orchestrating a campaign of misinformation and disinformation against the accused persons in the high-profile trial of former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau (NSB), Kwabena Adu-Boahene, and his wife, Angela Adjei Boateng. The accusation stems from comments made by Dr Srem-Sai during an appearance on the reputable media platform PM Express, where he discussed the details of the ongoing case. Botchway, representing the interests of the accused, asserts that the Deputy Attorney-General’s public statements are not only inaccurate but also fundamentally inconsistent with the evidence that has been formally presented and tested before the court. This public rebuke highlights a growing tension between the prosecution’s public relations strategy and the strict adherence to evidentiary standards required in a court of law, raising critical questions about the ethics of public commentary on active legal proceedings by senior government officials.
Paragraph 2: Hypocrisy and Overstepping Bounds
In a pointed critique delivered via a Facebook statement, Botchway acknowledged the constitutional right of the Deputy Attorney-General to discuss cases prosecuted by his office. However, he expressed deep concern that the assertions made during the television interview did not align with the factual record established in the courtroom. The lawyer highlighted a glaring contradiction in Dr Srem-Sai’s conduct, noting that the Deputy Attorney-General has consistently and publicly admonished defense lawyers against discussing the merits of their ongoing cases. Botchway argued that by appearing on national television to dissect the evidence, potential defenses, and perceived weaknesses of the accused, Dr Srem-Sai violated his own stated principle. This overstepping of bounds, according to Botchway, transforms what should be a judicial process into a public relations battle, where the narrative is shaped outside the sanctity of the courtroom, potentially prejudicing public opinion and undermining the presumption of innocence.
Paragraph 3: The Disputed UMB Account Narrative
The crux of the disagreement between the lawyer and the Deputy Attorney-General revolves around the narrative concerning a Universal Merchant Bank (UMB) account linked to BNC Operations, known as the “Private BNC” account. Botchway specifically challenged Dr Srem-Sai’s assertion that the bank flagged the account as suspicious in 2020, leading to the filing of a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) and the subsequent closure of the account. Botchway reminded the Deputy Attorney-General of his presence in court on 31 July 2026, when the prosecution’s own witness, EOCO investigator Frank Marshal Cromwell, was subjected to extensive cross-examination on this very issue. The lawyer argued that the sworn testimony presented a materially different and more complex story, suggesting that the Deputy Attorney-General was either misinformed or willingly ignoring the evidence presented by his own witness to construct a more compelling, albeit inaccurate, public narrative regarding the accused’s financial dealings.
Paragraph 4: Testimony Contradicts Public Claims
Delving into the specifics of the court testimony, Botchway clarified that investigator Cromwell testified that the alleged STR was filed in 2020 and was related to a single transaction involving GH¢7.2 million. According to the investigator’s testimony, this sum moved through Adu-Boahene’s account before being transferred to the National Security Coordinator’s account at Fidelity Bank, and ultimately to ISC Holdings in Israel for a cyber-defense system purchase. Crucially, Botchway pointed out that the prosecution witness also testified that UMB did not view the account’s opening as suspicious and did not flag the specific cheques paid into it or any other transactions as concerning. The testimony painted a picture where the bulk of the account’s activity was deemed normal by the bank, significantly undermining the Deputy Attorney-General’s blanket assertion that the account was so inherently suspicious it warranted closure based on this single, explained transaction.
Paragraph 5: Evidential Gaps and Timeline Discrepancies
Botchway argued that the investigator’s testimony exposed significant evidential gaps in the prosecution’s case regarding the STR. He noted that the investigator admitted during cross-examination that he did not contact the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) to independently verify the filing or receipt of the alleged STR, nor could he produce any acknowledgement from the FIC. The claim, therefore, rested substantially on a screenshot rather than official confirmation. More damaging to the prosecution’s timeline, the investigator testified that the UMB account was only closed on 2 March 2023, a full three years after the alleged STR was filed. Botchway argued that this three-year operational gap fundamentally severs any direct causal link between the STR and the account’s closure, questioning why, if the report was so damning, the bank allowed the account to operate for so long without any apparent consequence.
Paragraph 6: A Call for Evidence-Based Commentary
In conclusion, Botchway expressed astonishment that the Deputy Attorney-General would present such a distorted version of events to the public, especially given the testimony of his own witness. He accused Dr Srem-Sai of creating facts not supported by the court record and cautioned against using public forums to prejudice an ongoing case. He emphasized that public commentary should not become a vehicle for disinformation, and that the public deserves accurate information about the proceedings. Botchway reiterated his firm belief that the evidence as presented in court—showing no suspicion on account opening, no suspicion on other transactions, no FIC confirmation, and an unexplained three-year delay before closure—is the only legitimate basis for determining the facts. He stressed that the sanctity of the court record must prevail over sensationalist public narratives, and that the case should be decided solely on its evidentiary merits.