The dramatic courtroom walkout by Samuel Atta Akyea, Esq., senior counsel for Kwabena Adu-Boahene, former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau (NSB), has now been explained in a revealing legal motion filed at the Supreme Court of Ghana this week.
In a striking ex parte application, Mr. Adu-Boahene and his wife, Angela Adjei Boateng, accuse Justice John Eugene Nyante Nyadu, the presiding judge at the High Court (General Jurisdiction “10”), of “continuing operative bias,” “prejudgment,” and “a real likelihood of bias” in their ongoing criminal trial.
The motion, filed under Article 132 of the 1992 Constitution and Section 5 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), seeks an order of prohibition to restrain Justice Nyadu from continuing to hear the case titled:
The Republic v. Kwabena Adu-Boahene, Angela Adjei Boateng, Mildred Donkor and Advantage Solutions Ltd (Suit No. CR/0418/2025).
Allegations of Bias and Judicial Impropriety
The applicants allege four major grounds for their claim of bias. Chief among them is that the judge has prejudged critical matters, particularly those involving exculpatory evidence that could prove their innocence — a violation, they say, of their constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 19.
They further accuse the judge of demonstrating a real likelihood of bias by:
- Refusing to consider key defence evidence.
- Allowing himself to be “stampeded by the Attorney-General” into rushing rulings.
- Displaying “special extrajudicial interest” through unusually long and frequent court sittings.
“The Attorney-General’s stampeding of His Lordship, relating to his time in delivering his own decisions and deferring to the Attorney-General’s time dictates, is a real likelihood of bias,” the application asserts.
The Affidavit: The Adu-Boahene Account
In a detailed 42-paragraph affidavit, Mr. Adu-Boahene outlines what he describes as a series of “unlawful and prejudicial actions” that began on April 30, 2025, when he and his co-accused were allegedly “bundled into an EOCO vehicle” and forcibly taken to court.
Upon arrival, he claims, Attorney-General Dominic Ayine and Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Justice Srem Sai were already in the courtroom — even though the defence had not been notified of any scheduled appearance.
“To our shock, and as if it had been prearranged, we found the Attorney-General and his Deputy already cocooned in court,” the affidavit reads. “Our lawyers were not in formal attire and were served with the charge sheet right there.”
Mr. Adu-Boahene contends that the judge condoned these irregularities and later delivered rulings that reflected clear prejudgment. One such ruling reportedly dismissed the defence’s request for further disclosure as an “attempt to stall proceedings” and labelled certain exculpatory evidence “irrelevant.”
According to the applicants, these remarks show that the judge had “closed his mind” to their defence, thereby undermining the fairness of the trial.
Claims of Pressure from the Attorney-General
The affidavit also cites moments when the Deputy Attorney-General allegedly pressured the judge to expedite his rulings, compromising judicial independence.
“The learned Deputy Attorney-General cajoled him to abridge his time to the 3rd day of July 2025, which the court obliged,” the affidavit claims, alleging that the judge “did the Deputy Attorney-General’s bidding” by adjusting schedules to suit the prosecution.
Alleged ‘Special Interest’ in the Case
The defence also objects to what it calls the judge’s “special extrajudicial interest”, pointing to his decision to dedicate full-day sittings—from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. every Thursday and Friday—exclusively to their case.
“The special interest His Lordship is giving to this criminal case brings us to the conclusion that he cannot be an impartial umpire,” the affidavit declares.
Why Atta Akyea Walked Out
These developments shed new light on the tense courtroom moment last week when Lawyer Samuel Atta Akyea abruptly walked out of proceedings. Sources close to the defence say his action was a protest against perceived judicial bias and high-handedness, which had become “intolerable.”
The motion before the Supreme Court could prove pivotal. If granted, it would bar Justice Nyadu from continuing with the trial — effectively resetting proceedings and potentially reshaping one of Ghana’s most closely watched criminal prosecutions.
Looking Ahead
As the Supreme Court reviews the application, the case continues to raise broader questions about judicial independence, fair trial rights, and the balance of power between the bench and the Attorney-General’s office.
This legal drama, now playing out at the highest levels of Ghana’s judiciary, underscores the stakes involved when justice and perception of bias intersect in a high-profile prosecution.
Source: modernghana
Comments
Post a Comment