An attempt by lawyers for the former Deputy Executive Director of the National Service Authority, (NSA), Gifty Oware-Mensah, to halt her trial in the National Service Ghost names case, has been declined by the High Court in Accra.
After the declining the request to further delays the trial which has stalled for almost three months, Justice Kocuvie-Tay has sets series of dates for the trial to proceed beginning Monday, May 18, 2026 throughout to June.
Gifty Oware-Mensah has been charged for allegedly causing financial loss to the tune of GH¢38 million in relation to the National Service Ghost names scandal.
She pleaded not guilty to a count of stealing, two counts of willfully causing financial loss to the republic, a count each of using public office for profit, and money laundering, and was granted bail.
On Monday, May 11, 2026, the accused through her lawyers had argued that she had filed a writ at the Supreme Court seeking an interpretation of Part 2(3) of the Practice Direction on Disclosures vis-à-vis Article 19(2)(c) and Article 19(10) of the 1992 Constitution, which she claims contradict each other.
Her counsel, Gary Nimako Marfo, submitted that, following the filing of the writ, his client had also filed a pending motion asking the apex court to halt the High Court trial until the final determination of the writ.
The application for a stay of proceedings has been fixed for hearing on May 19, 2025 and it is the third time the accused person has filed an application to stay her trial, effectively delaying the matter.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, Mrs. Yvonne Attakora Obuobisa, led by Deputy Attorney General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, opposed the request.
She argued that the mere filing of an application for a stay does not operate as an automatic stay and prayed that the business of the day should continue.
The trial judge, Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, said that having received the documents and perused them, “this court holds the view that it can proceed with the matter subject to the ruling of the Supreme Court.”
The first prosecution witness, who was in the box, is to return for the continuation of his evidence-in-chief.
The former Deputy Executive Director of the National Service Authority (NSA), Gifty Oware-Mensah, has been released on bail after executing the conditions surrounding her GH¢10 million bail sum.
She has been accused of causing financial loss of more than GH¢38 million to the state and has denied all the charges leveled against her.
Arguments
Lead Counsel for the Accused Gifty Oware-Mensah, Garry Nimako Marfo argued that, on May 8, 2026, the accused persons caused an application for an order for a stay of proceedings to be filed at the Supreme Court on the back of a writ issued on March 17, 2026, in the case Gifty Oware-Mensah v. Attorney-General, Suit No. G1/8/2026.
He said, that writ prays the Apex Court to interpret Article 19(2)(c) and Article 19(10) of the 1992 Constitution and determine whether Part 2(3) of the Practice Direction 2018, which compels an accused person to file a list of witnesses at the Case Management Conference stage, is inconsistent with and in contravention of the said constitutional provisions.
Mr. Nimako said the motion for a stay of proceedings filed at the Supreme Court has May 19 as the return date.
“Our information is that the Attorney-General has been served, and the registrar of this court received service this morning,” he said.
“The issue for interpretation—Article 19(2)(c) and Article 19(10) vis-à-vis the constitutionality of Part 2(3) of the Practice Direction—goes to the heart of Ghana’s criminal jurisprudence,” he intimated.
It was his submission that, it is therefore proper, “having brought this to the attention of the court, that the court stays its hand in the pending proceedings pending the hearing and determination of the question of interpretation by the Supreme Court.”
“Our submission is fortified by Article 130(2) of the 1992 Constitution, which vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Supreme Court to interpret and enforce the Constitution.
“We submit that this question concerning the interpretation of Article 19(2)(c) and Article 19(10) has not been conclusively settled in a manner that binds the accused.
“It was for this reason that the accused, now Plaintiff in Suit No. G1/8/2026, issued a writ at the Supreme Court to bring finality to the relationship between Part 2(3) of the Practice Direction and the cited constitutional provisions,” he submitted.
He said, the Supreme Court, “being seized with jurisdiction, must pronounce on Article 19(2)(c) and Article 19(10) vis-à-vis Part 2(3) of the Practice Direction 2018. We humbly pray that the court stays proceedings to abide by the outcome of the Supreme Court’s interpretation to guide the conduct of this trial.”
“We further pray that the registrar be summoned to appear in open court to confirm whether or not he or she has been served with the application for a stay of proceedings filed at the Supreme Court on May 8, 2026, as claimed by the bailiff, Joshua.
“The information that the registrar has been served emanates from the bailiff, Josiah. Prior to the commencement of proceedings, I called him at 1:07 p.m., and he confirmed service on the registrar.
“At 1:11 p.m., while proceedings were ongoing, the bailiff attempted to reach me, and a missed call was recorded. My phone can be examined to confirm this fact, and the bailiff, Joshua, should be called to confirm service on the registrar.
“In the presence of everyone in court, I sent my clerk, Baba Musah, an officer of the court, to verify with the registry. He returned with a negative reply. I do not intend to go beyond this to call the registrar myself,” he said to buttress his submission.
DPP’s response
The Director of Public Prosecution, Mrs Yvonne Attakora Obuobisa for her part submitted that, “the record of the court shows that the business for today (May 11) was for the Republic to continue with the case, as far as we know, it is for PW1 to continue with her evidence-in-chief.”
She said Counsel for the accused has informed the court this afternoon that he has filed a motion for a stay in the Supreme Court to halt this proceedings pending the determination of whether parts of the Practice Directions conflict with the 1992 Constitution, under which the right to a fair trial is enshrined.
“It is our case that the mere filing of the application does not stay the hands of this court,” she said
While backing her submission with a case law principle in the Civil Motion No. G5/6/2015, Republic v. High Court, Commercial Division (8), Tamale, ex parte Dak Pen Zopogunna v. ……Dak Pen Naa Alhaji Alhassan Dawoud, the DPP said “It is within the discretion of this court to determine whether to stay proceedings. Respectfully, the registrar has informed the court that the motion had not been received as at the time this case was called.”
She said, “Granted that the writ filed by the accused person in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the order to file names and addresses succeeds, and the Supreme Court orders that such filing be deferred until the accused is called upon to open her defence, that outcome would not constitute a miscarriage of justice if proceedings continue today.”
As we speak, “that order has still not been complied with, and your ladyship has directed that proceedings continue. The trial may well proceed until the determination of the Supreme Court matter.
“The determination of the Supreme Court will not affect what PW1 is coming to say today. She is about to complete her evidence-in-chief, which commenced almost three months ago,” the DPP submitted.
By Court.
Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay stated that counsel for the accused had informed the court of alleged service on the registrar.
But, since the court had not been served, I caused my clerk to verify with the registrar whether the application had been received,” the Court said, “The response was negative.”
“As I sit here, I can confidently say that the court has not been served with such an application,” she said, adding that, “I believe the court has done due diligence by confirming with the registrar.”
However, during submissions, “deputy registrar entered the courtroom with documents which we believed might be the said application. I asked my clerk to check them.”
“Having received the documents and perused them, this court holds the view that it can proceed with the matter subject to the ruling of the Supreme Court,” the Court said.
