Victor Adawudu, a private legal practitioner, has raised concerns regarding the public disclosure of information by Kwabena Adu-Boahene, the former Director General of the National Signals Bureau. Mr. Adawudu contends that Mr. Adu-Boahene’s actions potentially violate the oath of secrecy, a legally binding commitment undertaken by public office holders to maintain confidentiality regarding matters encountered during their tenure. This oath prohibits the unauthorized dissemination of sensitive information, either directly or indirectly, unless explicitly permitted by law. Mr. Adawudu emphasized the existence of legal repercussions for such breaches, highlighting the gravity of Mr. Adu-Boahene’s actions. The controversy stems from Mr. Adu-Boahene’s public statements regarding allegations of fund embezzlement.
Mr. Adu-Boahene’s assertions, communicated through a letter dated May 6, 2025, addressed to the National Security Coordinator, countered allegations of embezzlement. He maintained that the funds in question were allocated for national security operations, not misappropriated for personal gain. However, Mr. Adawudu challenged the legality of these disbursements, arguing that they lacked proper authorization according to established protocols within the National Signals Bureau and the broader national security framework. He emphasized that financial disbursements within these institutions are subject to rigorous oversight and approval processes, involving multiple entities.
Mr. Adawudu underscored the established financial controls within the national security apparatus. Disbursements, he asserted, fall under the purview of several oversight bodies, including the National Security Council, the relevant government minister, and the finance and administration departments within the National Signals Bureau itself. Furthermore, budgets allocated for security intelligence operations undergo stringent scrutiny, requiring parliamentary approval and subsequent auditing by the Auditor General. These layers of oversight are designed to ensure transparency and accountability in the use of public funds, particularly within sensitive areas like national security.
Mr. Adawudu also addressed Mr. Adu-Boahene’s claims regarding disbursements to political opponents and parliamentarians. He clarified that any interactions between national security agencies and opposition parties typically revolve around intelligence gathering activities, not direct financial support. Such cooperation is essential for maintaining national security and stability but does not involve the transfer of funds. Regarding payments to parliamentarians, Mr. Adawudu explained that these instances often occur to facilitate the passage of crucial legislative instruments when budgetary constraints hinder the normal legislative process. This practice, though potentially controversial, aims to ensure the smooth functioning of government and the enactment of necessary laws.
Mr. Adawudu’s cautionary remarks serve as a reminder of the legal obligations and ethical responsibilities incumbent upon public office holders, particularly those entrusted with sensitive information related to national security. The oath of secrecy is not merely a formality but a critical safeguard protecting classified information and ensuring the integrity of government operations. Unauthorized disclosures can compromise national security interests, undermine public trust, and expose sensitive information to potential misuse.
In conclusion, Mr. Adawudu’s statements emphasize the importance of adherence to legal processes and established protocols within the national security framework. He advises Mr. Adu-Boahene to reserve his explanations for the appropriate legal channels, where due process and the principles of fairness and accountability can be upheld. The public airing of sensitive information, particularly that related to national security, raises serious legal and ethical concerns and underscores the need for strict adherence to established protocols and the oath of secrecy. The proper forum for addressing these allegations is within the legal system, where a thorough investigation and adjudication can take place.
