National Coordinator of the District Road Improvement Programme (DRIP), Nii Lantey Vanderpuye, has strongly criticised the defence put forward by former National Signals Bureau boss, Kwabena Adu-Boahene, in the ongoing GH¢49.1 million controversy, describing it as “hollow” and lacking credibility.
In a Panel discussion on Channel One TV’s Breakfast Daily on Thursday, May 8, he expressed disappointment in the legal strategy employed by Adu-Boahene’s team, particularly targeting his lawyer, Samuel Atta Akyea, for allowing his client to publicly release a statement before court proceedings had properly begun.
“It is very unfortunate, and my old classmate, lawyer Atta Akyea, did not do well. As a lawyer, I think in situations like this, you do not allow such things, because this could be one of your defences in court. You have already allowed the ordinary people who are not lawyers to virtually dismantle your defence.
“I thought that he would have been advised to keep quiet until the case starts…unfortunately, he allowed his client to make such a statement.”
Vanderpuye further criticised the content of Adu-Boahene’s letter, which was addressed to the National Security Coordinator and sighted by the media on Wednesday, May 7. The letter sought to explain how the disputed GH¢49.1 million was disbursed for various operational activities, including alleged payments to Members of Parliament, an opposition party, and an aide to the then President-elect.
“When you look at the statement, it is so hollow, it is not defensible, because the timelines do not work out, and also the excuses and the sort of agencies, institutions, he claimed he had financed some of the things, you may not even have evidence to back it. Most of these transactions are not covered by documents that people will sign, because of the way they’re done. So I feel sad for the young man.”
The letter from Adu-Boahene claimed that the funds were managed between two National Security accounts created to meet urgent national operations.
However, the case has not officially commenced in court, and the matter remains under public and legal scrutiny.
