High Court refuses Supreme Court referral in Gifty Oware-Mensah case
The issue stems from a case management order requiring Oware-Mensah to file the names and addresses of witnesses she may call, if she is later asked to open her defence.
The High Court has thrown out an application by lawyers for Gifty Oware-Mensah, a former Deputy Director of the National Service Authority (NSA), who wanted a constitutional question sent to the Supreme Court.
The dispute stems from a case management order requiring Oware-Mensah to file the names and addresses of witnesses she may call, if she is later asked to open her defence. Her legal team argued that the requirement conflicts with the 1992 Constitution, saying it undermines the presumption that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty.
On that basis, the defence asked the High Court to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
But in its ruling, the court said the applicant had not shown that a real constitutional interpretation issue had arisen to justify a referral. The application was therefore dismissed in full.
After the decision, defence lawyer Gary Nimako Marfo told the court the team would apply for the detailed written reasons and then advise their client on the next steps.
He also disclosed that Oware-Mensah had already filed a Notice of Appeal on 20 January 2026 against the earlier order compelling her to file the witness list and addresses.
Because of that appeal, the defence has also filed a Motion for Stay of Proceedings, dated 10 February 2026, which is now before the court. The motion, originally fixed for 17 February 2026, has been moved to 18 February 2026 at 10:00 a.m. after the prosecution raised concerns about a scheduling clash.
Oware-Mensah is facing multiple charges, including stealing and causing financial loss to the state.
Prosecutors allege she created 9,934 fictitious names in the NSA database and then used her private company, Blocks of Life Consult, to obtain a GH¢31.5 million loan from the Agricultural Development Bank (ADB).
The loan was allegedly secured on the claim that the company had supplied goods to national service personnel on a hire-purchase basis. Investigators, however, are said to have found that the beneficiaries were not real and that no goods were supplied.
The prosecution further claims the loan funds were paid into the company’s account and later transferred to other companies linked to the accused.
