The High Court is expected to hear tomorrow, Thursday, October 29, 2026, an application by lawyers for the accused persons in the Republic v. Adu Boahene & 2 Others case, popularly known as the cybersecurity software case, seeking to strike out portions of the prosecution’s written submissions opposing their submission of no case.
The application is scheduled for 10:00 a.m., after the court adjourned the matter to allow the relevant proceedings to be made available for consideration.
At the previous sitting, presiding judge Justice Achibonga questioned the relevance of the application, asking whether striking out the disputed portions would serve any practical purpose.
The judge said the court would rely on the official record of proceedings to determine the facts of the case, rather than on the parties’ written submissions. He noted that the submissions were intended primarily to assist the court on points of law and that inaccurate references to the record would not override the evidence before it.
Justice Achibonga also observed that the application appeared to challenge the prosecution’s interpretation of witness testimonies rather than the testimonies themselves.
Counsel for the accused persons, Mr Samuel Atta Akyea, maintained that the disputed portions contained serious claims about the record that were not supported by the proceedings. He argued that the matter raised concerns about professional misconduct.
The judge responded that the court was not being asked to determine allegations of professional misconduct.
Justice Achibonga also questioned the legal basis of the application. When Mr Atta Akyea said it was being brought under the court’s inherent jurisdiction, the judge stressed that this basis should be expressly stated on the motion paper.
“From your years of practice, if you are coming under the inherent jurisdiction, you should know what to do; it should be on the face of the motion paper. It is not here,” the judge remarked.
The prosecution has indicated that it will oppose the application on points of law.
Thursday’s hearing is expected to clarify whether the court will intervene in the disputed portions of the prosecution’s submissions as the case proceeds on the accused persons’ submission of no case.
