Madam Edith Ruby Opokua Adumuah, the Head of Finance at the National Signals Bureau (NSB) and prosecution witness for the Attorney General in the ongoing case involving the former Director of the National Signal Bureau (NSB), has disclosed that although she was investigated by the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), she was never charged with any offence.
The witness, Edith Ruby Opokua Adumuah, made this disclosure during a cross-examination by Samuel Atta Akyea, counsel for the first accused person, Kwabena Adu-Boahene, and two others, when the case was called before the High Court (General Jurisdiction 10) in Accra on Wednesday, November 12, 2025.
The State was represented by the Deputy Attorney General (DAG), Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, who appeared together with Esi Yankah and Rabiatu Abdulai.
Cross-Examination
During the cross-examination, Counsel Atta Akyea sought to establish whether Ms. Adumuah’s interaction with EOCO placed her in the position of a suspect or a witness in the ongoing case.
When asked by counsel whether she had been arrested after voluntarily appearing before EOCO and later granted bail, Ms. Adumuah firmly disagreed, stating that she was not arrested at any point during the investigation.
To a further question suggesting that she was treated as a suspect, the witness again disagreed, insisting that she was not informed by EOCO or her lawyer that she was being investigated for any crimes associated with her office at the National Signals Bureau.
The prosecution witness confirmed, however, that she had given three statements to EOCO but could not remember giving a caution statement. She also confirmed that her house was searched by EOCO officials but clarified that she was only asked to identify whether she owned other properties.
When counsel pressed further to find out whether she owned other houses apart from the one searched, the presiding judge restrained the witness from answering. The question sparked an objection from the prosecution, who argued that the line of questioning was irrelevant to the matter before the court.
In response, Mr. Atta Akyea insisted that his question was relevant since it followed from the witness’s earlier testimony. He cautioned that preventing such questions could distort the proceedings and undermine the principles of cross-examination. “If the Deputy Attorney General believes their witness should not be cross-examined, then she should not have been fielded in the first place,” he argued, urging the court to overrule the objection.
When asked whether EOCO had charged her after their investigation, Ms. Adumuah replied that she was not charged, explaining, “I believe investigations are meant to find out the truth, so if EOCO says I was not charged, I have nothing to say about it.”
She further confirmed that the three statements she provided to EOCO did not include another statement she signed outside EOCO on May 9, 2025. Following this, counsel prayed the court to order that the three statements be made available to the bench to enable him to continue his cross-examination. The presiding judge, however, directed that one of her earlier answers be corrected, noting that she might have misunderstood the previous question.
Counsel Atta Akyea also questioned whether the witness was informed that her interrogation at EOCO was being recorded, to which she answered in the affirmative. Asked if she understood that she was required to testify truthfully beyond what concerned her office, she replied that she had a letter from her office directing her to appear before the court to testify.
When counsel suggested that only suspects are admitted to bail, Ms. Adumuah responded, “I don’t know.” He further put it to her that she was admitted to bail because she was a suspect, but she maintained the same answer, saying she had no knowledge of that.
Mr. Atta Akyea later turned to the issue of invoices, revisiting a point raised at an earlier sitting. He asked the witness whether she recalled comparing two invoices bearing the same number, NSC006, which were generated by ICS Holdings Ltd. She confirmed that she did and explained that the invoices contained two different sets of items.
When asked to identify to whom the invoices were addressed, she stated that one was addressed to the National Security Council, Accra-Ghana, and the other to BNC.
The exchanges between counsel and the witness prompted a few objections and clarifications, after which the trial judge, Justice Eugene Nyadu Nyantei, adjourned the case to December 9, 10, and 11, 2025, for the continuation of cross-examination.
