The Supreme Court has dismissed an application filed by the Attorney-General seeking a review of its earlier ruling on the scope of further disclosures in the ongoing criminal trial of former National Signals Bureau Director-General, Kwabena Adu Boahen, and his wife.
In a majority decision delivered on Wednesday, January 28, 2026, the apex court rejected the state’s bid to restore the word “relevance” to the Practice Direction on Further Disclosures or to substitute it with the phrase “connected with the matter before the Court.”
The application was argued by Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai, who contended that the Supreme Court’s prior clarification — requiring prosecutors to disclose materials in their possession that are “connected to the case” rather than merely “relevant” — could open the door to overly broad disclosure requests without a sufficient link to the issues in dispute.
Dr Srem-Sai acknowledged the earlier ruling but urged the Court to reinstate the term “relevance” or adopt alternative wording to ensure disclosures remain meaningfully tied to the case.
Opposing the review application, counsel for Mr Adu Boahen, Samuel Atta Akyea, submitted that the Deputy Attorney-General had not shown the exceptional circumstances necessary to invoke the Court’s review jurisdiction. He argued that the original decision adequately balanced the prosecution’s disclosure obligations by limiting them to documents connected to the matter.
The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments from both sides, adjourned to consider the application and subsequently dismissed it by a majority, with Justice Kulendi delivering the dissenting opinion.
The full reasons for the Court’s decision are expected to be filed on or before February 4, 2026.
The matter is on the back of a judicial review application by Mr Adu Boahen and his wife, who sought to restrain the High Court from proceeding with their trial after their request for further disclosure of documents was refused. The Supreme Court had earlier clarified the prosecution’s disclosure duties under the Practice Direction.
The criminal trial involving Mr Adu Boahen continues in the High Court following the apex court’s clarification of the disclosure rules.