The Supreme Court has rejected a request from the Attorney-General for a review of a significant element of its previous ruling in the criminal case involving former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau, Kwabena Adu Boahen, and his spouse.
The state, represented by Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, sought the Court’s intervention to reinstate the term “relevance” in the Practice Direction on Further Disclosures, which outlines the prosecution’s duty to disclose documents during criminal proceedings.
In its prior ruling, the Supreme Court specified that prosecutors must disclose materials in their possession that are related to the case, rather than those that are simply “relevant.” This decision came after a judicial review application by Mr. Adu Boahen and his wife, who aimed to prevent the High Court from proceeding with the trial after their request for additional disclosures was denied.
While Dr. Srem-Sai recognized the Court’s earlier ruling, he contended that omitting the term “relevance” could allow for disclosure requests based solely on possession, without establishing a significant connection to the matters at hand.
He thus urged the Supreme Court to either restore the term or substitute it with the phrase “connected with the matter before the Court.”
In opposition to the application, Mr. Adu Boahen’s counsel, Samuel Atta Akyea, argued that the Deputy Attorney-General had not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances necessary to invoke the Court’s review jurisdiction. He asserted that the original ruling adequately addressed disclosure issues by restricting disclosure to documents pertinent to the case.
After considering arguments from both parties, the Court adjourned to deliberate on its decision.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court, in a majority ruling, dismissed the state’s application for review, with Justice Kulendi dissenting.
The Court is anticipated to publish its comprehensive reasons for the decision on or before February 4, 2026.
