Supreme Court Dismisses Bias Claims Against Judge in Fraud Trial
By Prince Ahenkorah
The Supreme Court has thrown out a motion filed by Kwabena Adu-Boahene, former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau (NSB), aiming to disqualify Justice John Eugene Nyante Nyadu from overseeing his ongoing criminal trial.
Adu-Boahene is currently standing trial on charges related to an alleged misappropriation of GH₵49 million in a contentious cyber-defence software procurement transaction.
In a unanimous ruling issued on October 29, a five-member Supreme Court panel headed by Justice Avril Lovelace Johnson, concluded that the application lacked merit and did not fulfill the necessary legal requirements for the removal of a sitting trial judge.
The panel underscored the absence of substantial proof indicating partiality or misconduct on the part of Justice Nyadu warranting his exclusion from the proceedings.
Adu-Boahene and his legal wife, Adjei-Boateng, are accused of diverting funds intended for the acquisition of a national cyber-defence software system.
Prosecutors allege that the misused funds were siphoned through a network of companies associated with Adu-Boahene’s private firm, ASL, rather than being allocated to the designated national security project.
The former NSB chief has entered a plea of not guilty to an array of charges, including fraudulent activities, deliberate financial misappropriation, exploitation of public office for personal gain, and fraudulent acquisition of public assets.
His wife, also embroiled in the case, faces charges of complicity in the misuse of public office for personal benefit, conspired money laundering, and engaging in money laundering activities.
On October 22, 2025, Adu-Boahene, represented by his attorney Samuel Atta Akyea, petitioned the Supreme Court to intercede via their supervisory powers to halt Justice Nyadu’s continued adjudication of the trial.
In his plea, Adu-Boahene alleged that the trial judge had exhibited prejudice and bias against him.
He contended that certain rulings made by Justice Nyadu, notably concerning the admissibility and relevance of evidence sought from the Attorney-General’s Office, implied a predetermined stance on critical aspects of his defense strategy.
He argued that such actions encroached upon his constitutional entitlement to a fair trial as enshrined in the 1992 Constitution of Ghana.
Furthermore, Adu-Boahene highlighted the extended court operating hours, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., as indications of what he characterized as the judge’s unusual eagerness to expedite the trial, a move that, in his view, could jeopardize judicial impartiality.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court discredited these claims, deeming the conduct and decisions of Justice Nyadu impartial and objective.
The Court accentuated that the trial judge was merely executing his obligation to facilitate an efficient legal process, and Adu-Boahene’s interpretation of these procedural aspects was unfounded and lacked substantive grounds.