Israeli security firm exposes Ayine in Adu-Boahene’s trial

The high-profile trial of former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General, Kwabena Adu-Boahene, has taken a dramatic turn after International Security Consulting (I.S.C) Holding Ltd., the Israeli company at the centre of the controversial cybersecurity contract, confirmed that it fully delivered the system to the National Security.

This disclosure contradicts earlier claims made in court by Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dr. Dominic Ayine, and the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), who both insisted that no such equipment was ever received.

Attorney-General’s Position

During proceedings, Dr. Ayine told the court that government records showed no trace of the sophisticated cybersecurity defence system that Adu-Boahene allegedly procured under a confidential contract signed on 30 January 2020.

“Further investigations have revealed that no cybersecurity system of the description in the January 30, 2020 contract was ever received by the Bureau of National Communications, its successor, the National Signals Bureau, or by the Government of Ghana,” Dr. Ayine argued.

He further relied on inventory checks from the National Security Secretariat to back the claim that nothing had been delivered.

This narrative formed the basis of 11 criminal charges filed against Adu-Boahene, including willfully causing financial loss to the state, stealing, defrauding by false pretenses, and abuse of office.

EOCO’s investigation reports, led by its Executive Director Raymond Archer, also echoed the same claims.

ISC Holding’s Intervention

But in a letter dated 28 May 2025, and addressed to Adu-Boahene’s lead counsel, Samuel Atta Akyea, I.S.C Holding Ltd categorically rejected the Attorney-General’s assertion. The Israeli security consultancy, which has decades of experience supplying intelligence and defence systems worldwide, stated that Ghana received every item under the 2020 agreement.

“We hereby declare and for the avoidance of any doubt that: all cyber defence systems procured by the NSB, supplied under a confidential agreement signed on January 30, 2020, with an associated continuing service covenant, were fully delivered to Ghana’s National Security,” the company affirmed.

The company also emphasized that its position specifically covers Adu-Boahene’s period in office, further strengthening his legal team’s defence.

Defence Lawyers Cry Foul

Adu-Boahene’s lawyers, led by Lawrence Kwesi Botchway Jnr, have long argued that the state’s case was built on a “false premise.”

They described EOCO’s position as a “cancerous deception” that undermines both justice and national security.

Botchway recounted that his client and associates were subjected to “shabby treatment” during their arrest on 30 April 2025, when armed officers forcibly transported them from EOCO’s premises to the High Court.

The defence maintains that the charges were rushed, pointing to the fact that the Attorney-General filed the case hours before the accused were even brought to court.

The central accusation states that Adu-Boahene misappropriated GH¢27.1 million under the pretext of procuring the cyber defence system. But the latest confirmation from ISC Holdings, combined with statements made by President John Dramani Mahama at a September 2025 media encounter—where he referenced the system’s functionality—has raised serious questions about EOCO’s case.

Silence from National Security

One major concern flagged by the defence is the silence of the current National Security leadership. While they continue to utilize the system, the lawyers argue, they have failed to clarify its existence publicly. This, they say, emboldens the prosecution’s narrative.

“Fellow Ghanaians, the irony is that the succeeding National Security is silent and giving oxygen to EOCO’s official deception,” Botchway stated in a strongly worded press release.

Implications for the Case

The intervention by I.S.C Holding Ltd could mark a turning point in what has become one of the most politically sensitive trials in recent years. It not only undermines the Attorney-General’s case but also puts EOCO’s investigative methods under scrutiny.

For Adu-Boahene, whose reputation has been battered by months of legal proceedings, the Israeli company’s confirmation may provide the strongest backing yet for his claim of innocence.

Meanwhile, critics argue that the case exposes deep flaws in how the security agencies handle procurement, accountability, and political pressure.