The Supreme Court has fixed January 14, 2026, to deliver its ruling on an application by the Deputy Attorney-General seeking a review of portions of an earlier Supreme Court decision on disclosure obligations in the ongoing criminal trial of former National Signals Bureau Director, Kwabena Adu Boahen, and his wife.
The couple are facing charges of stealing, money laundering, and using public office for profit.
In its previous judgment, a five-member panel of the Supreme Court revised the Practice Direction on Further Disclosures in criminal trials, holding that prosecutors are required to disclose only materials already in their possession that are “connected to the case,” effectively removing the broader requirement to disclose all “relevant” materials.
The ruling came after Mr and Mrs Adu Boahen unsuccessfully attempted to invoke the Supreme Court’s supervisory jurisdiction to prohibit the High Court judge hearing their case from continuing the trial.
Dissatisfied with the revised wording, Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai invoked the Court’s review jurisdiction, arguing that deleting the word “relevance” without substituting an equivalent term had inadvertently rewritten the Practice Direction in a manner that could create confusion.
He warned that limiting disclosure strictly to materials in the prosecution’s possession, without regard to relevance or connection to the issues in dispute, could undermine fair trial rights and force practitioners into unnecessary disputes.
Dr Srem-Sai therefore prayed the Court to either restore the original term “relevance” in its ordinary non-technical sense or replace it with the phrase “connected with the matter before the Court” to ensure there is always a clear nexus between requested documents and the charges being tried.
After hearing arguments from both sides on Wednesday, the Supreme Court panel reserved its ruling to January 14, 2026.