The Accra High Court has adjourned the trial of former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau (NSB), Kwabena Adu-Boahene, and his wife, Angela Adjei-Boateng, to August 25, 2026.

The adjournment follows an application before the Supreme Court seeking to restrain the High Court from hearing the case during the ongoing legal vacation.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear the injunction application on August 20, 2026.

Mr Adu-Boahene and his wife are standing trial over the alleged diversion of GH¢49.1 million allocated for the procurement of a cyber-defence system.

Mr Adu-Boahene has pleaded not guilty to charges including defrauding by false pretences, wilfully causing financial loss to the state, using public office for personal gain and obtaining public property by false pretences.

His wife has also pleaded not guilty to charges of collaboration to use public office for personal gain, conspiracy to launder money and money laundering.

When the case was called on Monday, August 17, Peter Osei-Asamoah, who held brief for the substantive defence counsel, Samuel Atta Akyea, asked the court to adjourn the matter.

He told the court that Mr Atta Akyea had written on August 14, 2026, explaining that other professional commitments prevented him from attending proceedings during the legal vacation.

According to Mr Osei-Asamoah, the request was made to ensure that the accused persons were adequately represented, as guaranteed under the 1992 Constitution.

The Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, opposed the application.

He argued that the reasons given by Mr Atta Akyea were similar to those contained in a letter sent to the Chief Justice and that the defence had not explained why other lawyers from his firm could not represent the accused persons.

Dr Srem-Sai further argued that the court had already ordered the case to proceed during the legal vacation.

He urged the court to dismiss the request and allow the trial to continue.

Mr Osei-Asamoah subsequently drew the court’s attention to the injunction application pending before the Supreme Court.

He explained that the application specifically sought to restrain the High Court from proceeding with the trial during the legal vacation and was scheduled to be heard on August 20.

The defence, he said, was not claiming that the Supreme Court had already issued an order staying the proceedings but was asking the High Court to hold the case in abeyance until the application was determined.

Dr Srem-Sai disagreed, insisting that the mere filing of an injunction application did not prevent the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction.

He argued that an injunction takes effect only after the court has issued an order.

He further submitted that the appropriate procedure for challenging proceedings before a lower court was through judicial review mechanisms such as certiorari or prohibition, rather than simply filing an injunction application.

In his ruling, Justice Francis Apangabuno Achibonga rejected the defence’s request to adjourn the case to the next legal term.

The judge said granting that request would mean pushing the trial to October and would defeat the purpose for which he had been appointed a vacation judge.

He also noted that the absence of Mr Atta Akyea should not necessarily prevent other lawyers from his firm from representing the accused persons.

However, on the pending Supreme Court application, Justice Achibonga took a different position.

Although he acknowledged that the filing of an injunction application did not automatically stay proceedings, he held that a lower court should exercise restraint where a superior court had been specifically asked to restrain it from undertaking a particular action.

He therefore concluded that he could not proceed with the trial while the injunction application remained pending before the Supreme Court.

The case has consequently been adjourned to August 25, 2026, at 9:30 a.m.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the injunction application on August 20 is now expected to provide clarity on whether the High Court can proceed with the trial during the legal vacation.