This follows a directive by the court for Gifty Oware-Mensah to file a list of witnesses she may be minded to call and their addresses in case she is asked to open her defense.
The application by her lawyers is grounded on the belief that the requirement is inconsistent with provisions of the 1992 Constitution, contending that it infringes on the constitutional rights of an accused person to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
On that basis, the defence asked the High Court to refer the constitutional question to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
In its ruling, the court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate that any real issue of constitutional interpretation had arisen to justify such a referral. The court consequently dismissed the application in its entirety.
Following the ruling, counsel for the accused, Gary Nomako Marfo, informed the court that the defence would apply for the full written reasons for the decision and advise their client on the next steps.
He further disclosed that the accused had already filed a Notice of Appeal on 20 January 2026 against the order compelling her to file a list of witnesses and their addresses.
As a result, a Motion for Stay of Proceedings, filed on 10 February 2026, is currently pending before the court.
Although the motion was initially scheduled for hearing on February 17, 2026, the date was rescheduled to February 18, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. following concerns raised by the prosecution about a scheduling conflict.
Gifty Oware-Mensah, a former Deputy Director of the National Service Authority, is standing trial on multiple counts, including stealing and causing financial loss to the state.
According to court documents, prosecutors allege that Gifty Oware-Mensah created 9,934 fictitious names in the NSA database and used her private company, Blocks of Life Consult, to secure a GH¢31.5 million loan from the Agricultural Development Bank (ADB).
Prosecutors say the loan was obtained under the claim that the company had supplied goods to national service personnel on a hire-purchase basis.
However, investigations allegedly revealed that the listed beneficiaries were fictitious and that no goods had been supplied.
The prosecution further alleges that funds from the loan were paid into the company’s account and subsequently transferred to other companies linked to the accused.
The case is expected to continue on February 18 2026, when the court will consider the pending motion for stay of proceedings.
