The trial of former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau (NSB), Kwabena Adu Boahene, took a fresh turn on Tuesday after the prosecution’s fourth witness (PW4), an investigator with the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), made a series of admissions under cross-examination that the defence argued exposed significant gaps in the investigation.Testifying before the court, Frank Marshall Cromwell acknowledged that there was no identifiable complainant whose complaint prompted the investigation into the alleged offences.The admission relates to the prosecution’s case, which accuses Mr Adu Boahene of the alleged theft and misappropriation of GH¢49.1 million.Mr Cromwell also admitted that, although the funds in question were allegedly allocated for national security operations, he did not consult officials of the National Security Secretariat or any other relevant national security institution to establish the purpose, authorisation or operational context of the transactions under investigation.His testimony follows that of the prosecution’s third witness (PW3), Edith Ruby Adumuah, Head of Finance at the National Signals Bureau, who told the court that no funds had gone missing from the institution.She testified that had any money gone missing, she would have detected and reported it.Ms Adumuah further stated that the NSB’s approved budget for 2020 was GH¢13.9 million, arguing that it would have been impossible for anyone to steal GH¢49.1 million from the institution during that period.She also informed the court that there had been no internal queries, audit findings or reports indicating any missing funds.During cross-examination of PW4, defence counsel questioned the investigator’s failure to consult key national security officials before concluding the investigation.Mr Cromwell admitted that he neither interviewed nor sought clarification from officials within the National Security establishment regarding the operational purpose of the funds at the centre of the case.The defence argued that the failure to obtain the institutional perspective on the transactions raises questions about the completeness of the investigation, particularly as the prosecution’s case centres on funds allegedly allocated for national security operations.