The Supreme Court has dismissed an application by the Attorney-General seeking a review of a key aspect of its earlier ruling in the criminal trial involving former National Signals Bureau Director-General, Kwabena Adu Boahen, and his wife.
The state, represented by Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai, had asked the Court to restore the word “relevance” to the Practice Direction on Further Disclosures, which governs the prosecution’s obligation to disclose documents in criminal proceedings.
In its earlier decision, the Supreme Court clarified that prosecutors are required to disclose materials in their possession that are connected to the case, rather than materials that are merely “relevant.” That ruling followed a judicial review application by Mr Adu Boahen and his wife, who sought to restrain the High Court from continuing the trial after their request for further disclosures was denied.
Although Dr Srem-Sai acknowledged the Court’s earlier ruling, he argued that the removal of the word “relevance” could permit disclosure requests based solely on possession, without establishing a meaningful link to the issues before the court.
He therefore urged the Supreme Court to either reinstate the term or replace it with the phrase “connected with the matter before the Court.”
Opposing the application, counsel for Mr Adu Boahen, Samuel Atta Akyea, argued that the Deputy Attorney-General had failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required to invoke the Court’s review jurisdiction. He maintained that the original ruling had sufficiently addressed disclosure concerns by limiting disclosure to documents connected to the case.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court adjourned to consider its decision.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, dismissed the state’s application for review, with Justice Kulendi dissenting.
The Court is expected to file its full reasons for the decision on or before February 4, 2026.
