New Questions Rock Adu Boahene Cyber Fraud Case
TNR Files
A deepening forensic examination of documents tendered in the Accra High Court has exposed what investigators are calling a brazen attempt to mislead judicial proceedings, with former MP and lead counsel Samuel Atta Akyea now squarely in the crosshairs of perjury allegations.
At the centre of the storm is a letter purportedly from an Israeli cyber firm that Atta Akyea submitted as evidence in the ongoing trial of his client, former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director General Kwabena Adu Boahene. The state has accused Adu Boahene and his wife, Angela Adjei Boateng, of diverting Ghc49.1 million (US$7 million) meant for the purchase of a Cyber Defense System and Digitized Investigative Audit System from Israel in 2020.
On September 9, 2026, a defiant Atta Akyea addressed journalists at the forecourt of the Accra Court Complex, publicly owning the document. He dismissed suggestions of forgery as “a very cruel propaganda” orchestrated by “hirelings of the prosecution.”
“A very cruel propaganda was put in the public space that I forged documents mandating ISC Holdings Limited in Israel. I consider it very, very cruel and the reason why it is being carried out that way is that that is the coup de grace of the prosecution’s case,” Atta Akyea declared.
But a meticulous review of the correspondence by The New Republic reveals a trail of glaring discrepancies that legal experts say could constitute perjury and an attempt to subvert the course of justice.
A Tale of Two Companies
The problems begin with the identity of the supposed vendor. While the original proforma invoice from the genuine Israeli company International Security Consultancy Holdings Ltd lists its address as 65 Ha’azmaut St. POB 3328, Haifa, 31331 Israel, Atta Akyea’s letter was addressed to a different entity: I.S.C. Group Ltd, located at 35 Avital St, Rosh Maayin, Israel.
The discrepancies do not end there. The reply Atta Akyea claims to have received—dated July 28, 2026 came on a plain sheet bearing a shabby attempt at a letterhead. The supposed sender referred to itself variously as “I.S.C. Group Consulting Limited,” “I.S.C. Holding Ltd,” and even “International Security Consultants Holdingd Ltd” complete with two glaring typographical errors in the very name of the company.
The New Republic’s independent checks have further revealed that I.S.C. Group Consulting Limited does not appear to exist as a cyber security firm in Israel. The closest match is a UK-based entity operating in gender diversity and insurance a far cry from a military-grade cyber defense contractor.
Same Invoice, Two Different Transactions
Perhaps the most damning evidence of the document’s fabrication is the invoice itself. The letter from the so-called I.S.C. Group confirms that it issued invoice “NSC006” for two entirely separate purchases one on January 2, 2020 for the Cyber Defense System, and another on March 30, 2020 for the Digitized Investigative Auditing System.
In a baffling explanation, the supposed Israeli company wrote: “The two invoices have the same invoice number ‘NSC006’ but do not relate to the same projects.”
In the world of international procurement, issuing identical invoice numbers for different multi-million-dollar transactions under separate contracts is virtually unheard of—a red flag that has left financial forensic experts baffled.
“The Noose Tightens”
The stakes are immense. In 2020, the NSB under Adu Boahene contracted the Israeli firm to supply the systems. However, after the New Patriotic Party (NPP) government lost power in 2024, it emerged that while the Ghc49.1 million had been paid, the systems were never delivered.
The state has alleged that Adu Boahene, in collusion with his wife, routed the funds through a shell company with initials mirroring the NSB.
When the court ordered both parties to verify the delivery with the Israeli company, it became clear the systems had not been supplied. It was at this critical juncture that Atta Akyea produced the now-controversial letter—a document the state describes as a desperate, last-ditch attempt to exonerate his client.
With the exposure of the fakery, legal observers say the noose is now tightening around Atta Akyea. “A lawyer who submits a forged document to a court of law is not just committing perjury; they are undermining the very foundation of the judicial system,” one legal analyst, who requested anonymity, told The New Republic.
As of press time, Atta Akyea had not responded to questions regarding the glaring inconsistencies in the company’s name, address, and the identical invoice numbers. The trial continues, but the reputational damage to the once-respected former lawmaker may already be irrevocable.