The Supreme Court has dismissed an application by the Attorney-General seeking a review of a key aspect of its earlier ruling in the criminal trial involving the former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau, Kwabena Adu Boahen, and his wife.
The state, represented by Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai, had urged the Court to restore the word “relevance” to the Practice Direction on Further Disclosures, which outlines the prosecution’s duty to disclose documents in criminal proceedings.
In its earlier decision, the Supreme Court clarified that prosecutors are required to disclose materials in their possession that are connected to the case, rather than materials that are merely relevant. That decision followed 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 disclosures was refused.
Although Dr Srem-Sai acknowledged the Court’s prior ruling, he argued that removing the word “relevance” could open the door for disclosure requests based solely on possession, without establishing a meaningful nexus to the issues before the court. He therefore invited the Court to either reinstate the term or substitute it with the phrase “connected with the matter before the Court.”
Opposing the application, counsel for Mr Adu Boahen, Samuel Atta Akyea, contended that the Deputy Attorney-General had failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required to trigger the Court’s review jurisdiction. He argued that the original ruling had already struck a proper balance by limiting disclosure to documents connected to the case.
After hearing submissions from both sides, the Court adjourned to consider its decision.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, dismissed the state’s application for review. Justice Kulendi dissented.
The Court is expected to file its full reasons for the decision on or before February 4, 2026
