The Supreme Court has deferred its ruling on a request by the Attorney‑General asking the Court to review portions of its earlier decision in the case involving former National Signals Bureau boss, Kwabena Adu‑Boahen and his wife, who are standing trial for stealing, money laundering, and using public office for private gain.
The AG, through the Deputy Attorney‑General (DAG) Justice Srem‑Sai, wants the apex court to review its earlier decision on a key aspect of the Practice Direction on Further Disclosures.
Adu‑Boahen and his wife, Angela Adjei‑Boateng, had previously filed an application before the Supreme Court seeking to prohibit the High Court judge presiding over the criminal trial, following a ruling on disclosures.
But the Court dismissed that application, clearing the way for the trial to continue.
Though the decision went in favour of the state, an aspect of the apex court’s holding—that the prosecution is required to disclose materials that are in its possession and connected to the case, rather than materials that are in its possession and “relevant,” as originally stated—prompted the AG to seek a review.
In court on Wednesday, January 14, when the case was called for ruling, a seven‑member panel of the Supreme Court, presided over by Justice Lovelace Johnson, said their ruling is not ready.
The case has since been adjourned to January 28.
Background
The Attorney General, unhappy with the removal of the word “relevance” from the disclosure criteria, the Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai invoked the Court’s review jurisdiction, arguing that the ordinary bench had effectively rewritten the Practice Direction by deleting “relevance” without inserting any equivalent term.
This the contents that could lead to practitioners relying solely on possession —without considering whether requested materials bear any connection to the issues on trial.
Dr. Srem-Sai urged the Court to restore the word “relevance” with its ordinary, non-technical meaning, or replace it with the phrase “connected with the matter before the Court,” insisting that the criminal disclosure regime must require some nexus between the materials requested and the case.
Samuel Atta Akyea, Counsel for Adu Boahen, opposed the submission and contended the review thad not met the strict threshold for invoking the Court’s review powers.
He said no fundamental error of law had been demonstrated and that the ruling already addressed the concern by requiring materials to be “connected to the case.”
He also argued that the Court did not breach natural justice by not seeking further submissions on the meaning of relevance, as it is empowered to conduct its own legal research.
End
