New Judge Takes Over Republic V. Adu-Boahene Trial Midway
A new judge has taken over the ongoing criminal trial involving former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau, Kwabena Adu-Boahene, after the case had already begun in court.
According to reports, Justice Francis Apangabuno Achibonga assumed responsibility for the case on Wednesday, March 11, 2026, replacing the previous judge who had been presiding over the trial.
The development means the high-profile case will now continue under the supervision of the newly assigned judge, even though proceedings had already commenced earlier.
The case involves allegations against Adu-Boahene relating to the procurement of a cyber-defence software system for the state. Prosecutors claim that funds meant for the acquisition of the system were diverted through a network of companies linked to the accused.
Adu-Boahene and other accused persons have denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty to several charges. These include defrauding by false pretences, wilfully causing financial loss to the state, using public office for private gain, and obtaining public property by false pretences.
The case has attracted significant national attention due to the amount of money involved and the sensitive nature of the state security system linked to the procurement.
Legal analysts note that when a new judge takes over a case midway through proceedings, the court may need to review earlier records and evidence before continuing with the trial to ensure fairness and due process.
The Adu-Boahene trial has already experienced several legal challenges and applications in the past. In 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed a motion seeking to remove the earlier trial judge from the case, ruling that the application lacked merit.
With the new judge now in charge, the trial is expected to continue as the court examines evidence and hears testimonies related to the alleged financial misconduct.
The outcome of the case is being closely watched by the public and legal observers, as it could have broader implications for accountability in public office and the handling of sensitive government procurement contracts.




