The Supreme Court has fixed January 14, 2026, to deliver its ruling on a review application filed by the Deputy Attorney-General (DAG) in the criminal case involving former National Signals Bureau boss, Kwabena Adu Boahen, and his wife.
The review request follows the Court’s earlier decision dismissing an application by Adu Boahen and his wife seeking to prohibit the High Court judge presiding over their criminal trial on charges of stealing, money laundering, and using public office for private gain.
Although the Supreme Court’s ruling cleared the way for the trial to continue, it also revised a key provision in the Practice Direction on Further Disclosures, holding that the prosecution is required to disclose materials in its possession and connected to the case, rather than materials in its possession and “relevant”, as previously stated.
DAG Invokes Review Jurisdiction
Unhappy with the removal of the word “relevance” from the disclosure standard, the Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, invoked the Court’s review jurisdiction, arguing that the original panel had effectively rewritten the Practice Direction.
He contended that deleting the term without inserting an equivalent could result in practitioners demanding disclosure of documents based solely on possession, even if they bear no meaningful relationship to the issues before the court.
The DAG urged the Supreme Court to either restore the word “relevance” in its ordinary, non-technical sense or replace it with the phrase “connected with the matter before the Court,” stressing that criminal disclosure must require a clear nexus between the requested materials and the case on trial.
Judicial Interventions
During the hearing, members of the review panel, including Justices Amadu Tanko and Lovelace Johnson, reminded the DAG that the threshold for review is exceptionally high, requiring proof of extraordinary circumstances.
The judges also cautioned him against mischaracterising the earlier decision, noting that the ordinary bench had indeed stated that disclosures must concern documents “material to the case.”
Respondents: No Basis for Review
Counsel for Kwabena Adu Boahen, Samuel Atta-Akyea, argued that the Deputy Attorney-General had failed to meet the strict legal standard for invoking the Court’s review powers.
He maintained that:
Atta-Akyea further argued that the Supreme Court did not breach natural justice by failing to request further submissions on the meaning of “relevance,” noting that the Court is entitled to conduct its own independent legal research.
Next Steps
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court adjourned proceedings and scheduled January 14, 2026, to rule on whether the word “relevance” should be restored—or replaced—in Ghana’s criminal disclosure framework.
