The Supreme Court will rule on a request by the Deputy Attorney-General (DAG) to review portions of its previous decision in the case involving former National Signals Bureau boss Kwabena Adu Boahen and his wife, who are on trial for stealing, money laundering, and using public office for private gain.
Adu Boahen and his wife had already petitioned the Supreme Court to remove the High Court judge who presided over his criminal prosecution.
The Court dismissed the application, allowing the trial to continue.
The Supreme Court did, however, amend a crucial part of the Practice Direction on Further Disclosures in its decision, holding that the prosecution must reveal documents that are in its possession and related to the case rather than those that are in its possession and “relevant,” as was initially stated.
The Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai used the Court’s review jurisdiction because he was unhappy that the word “relevance” had been removed from the disclosure criteria. He claimed that the ordinary bench had essentially rewritten the Practice Direction by removing “relevance” without adding a substitute term.
He cautioned that this might cause practitioners to rely only on possession, without taking into account whether the requested materials are relevant to the issues at trial.
The DAG insisted that the criminal disclosure regime must require some connection between the requested information and the case, and urged the Court to either restore the word “relevance” to its common, non-technical meaning or substitute it with the phrase “connected with the matter before the Court.”
Justices Lovelace Johnson and Amadu Tanko were among the panelists who urged the DAG to concentrate on the burden necessary for a review, reminding him that he must demonstrate extraordinary circumstances.
Additionally, the justices stepped in and warned the DAG to accurately report the ordinary bench’s decision, pointing it that it did specify that disclosures must pertain to records “material to the case.”
Samuel Atta-Akyea, the attorney for respondent Adu Boahen, retorted that the DAG had not satisfied the stringent requirements for utilizing the Court’s review authority.
There has been no proof of a fundamental legal error.
By mandating that the documents be “connected to the case,” the ruling has addressed the issue.
He further argued that the Court did not violate natural justice by not requesting additional submissions on the concept of relevance, because it has the authority to conduct its own legal study.
Following the arguments, the Court delayed proceedings until January 14, 2026, to rule on whether “relevance” should be restored or replaced in the country’s criminal disclosure system.
Source: newsthemegh.com