Supreme Court rejects Attorney-General’s bid to review criminal disclosure ruling
In an earlier decision, the Supreme Court dismissed an attempt by the accused persons to stop the High Court judge handling their trial. But in the same ruling, the court also took a significant procedural step: it reworked the Practice Direction on Further Disclosures.
The Supreme Court has, by a 6–1 majority, refused an application by the Attorney-General asking the court to review its earlier decision on criminal disclosures in the ongoing case involving former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene and his wife.
Justice Yonny Kulendi was the only judge to dissent.
The couple is facing charges including stealing, money laundering, and using public office for private gain.
In an earlier decision, the Supreme Court dismissed an attempt by the accused persons to stop the High Court judge handling their trial. But in the same ruling, the court also took a significant procedural step: it reworked the Practice Direction on Further Disclosures.
The court held that prosecutors must disclose only those materials in their possession, and
connected to the case, rather than everything described broadly as “relevant”.
That change is what triggered the Attorney-General’s review application.
The Attorney-General maintained that, by effectively stripping out “relevance” without replacing it with a clear equivalent standard, the Supreme Court had — in effect — redesigned the disclosure framework.
Represented by Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai, the State argued that the revised approach could lead to an overly narrow reading of disclosure duties, with prosecutors focusing strictly on what they physically hold, rather than what might materially bear on issues at trial.
The Attorney-General asked the court to either restore the word “relevance” in its ordinary meaning, or
Substitute it with wording such as “connected with the matter before the court”,to keep a clear legal link between disclosure requests and the substance of the case, and to protect fair trial safeguards.
A majority of the court was not persuaded. It dismissed the review application and declined to reopen the earlier ruling.
The Supreme Court says its full written reasons will be delivered on 4 February.
The seven-member panel was made up of:
Justice Lovelace Johnson (presiding)
Justice Amadu Tanko
Justice Yonny Kulendi (dissenting)
Justice Senyo Dzamefe
Justice Richard Adjei-Frimpong
Justice Sir Dennis Agyei
Justice Kwaku Tawiah Ackaah-Boafo
