The Supreme Court has, by a 6–1 majority decision, dismissed an application filed by the Attorney-General seeking a review of the Court’s earlier ruling on criminal disclosure obligations in the ongoing case involving former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau, Kwabena Adu-Boahene, and his wife.
The couple is currently standing trial at the High Court on charges of stealing, money laundering, and using public office for private gain. In an earlier application, they had asked the Supreme Court to restrain the High Court judge presiding over the matter, but that request was dismissed.
In the same decision, the apex court revised the Practice Direction on Further Disclosures, holding that prosecutors are required to disclose only materials in their possession that are connected to the case, rather than all materials broadly described as “relevant”. It was this aspect of the ruling that prompted the Attorney-General to invoke the Court’s review jurisdiction.
Arguing before the Court, the Attorney-General contended that by effectively removing the word “relevance” from the disclosure framework without substituting it with an equivalent standard, the Supreme Court had, in practical terms, rewritten the law on criminal disclosure. The Attorney-General warned that the ruling risked narrowing disclosure obligations to mere possession of documents, without adequate consideration of whether such materials had a meaningful bearing on the issues before the trial court.
Represented by Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, the Attorney-General urged the Court to either restore the word “relevance” in its ordinary sense or replace it with clearer language such as “connected with the matter before the court”. According to him, this would preserve a proper nexus between requested materials and the subject of the trial, and prevent the disclosure regime from being applied too restrictively to the detriment of fair trial standards.
However, the Supreme Court, by a 6–1 majority, rejected the application and declined to review its earlier decision.
The Court has indicated that its full, reasoned judgment will be delivered on February 4.
The panel that determined the matter was composed of Justice Lovelace Johnson, who presided, Justice Amadu Tanko, Justice Yonny Kulendi, Justice Senyo Dzamefe, Justice Richard Adjei-Frimpong, Justice Sir Dennis Agyei, and Justice Kwaku Tawiah Ackaah-Boafo. Justice Yonny Kulendi delivered the lone dissenting opinion.