The Supreme Court has scheduled January 14, 2026, to rule on a request by the Deputy Attorney-General for a review of parts of its earlier decision in the case involving former National Signals Bureau head, Kwabena Adu Boahen, and his wife.
The couple are on trial for stealing, money laundering, and using public office for private gain. They had initially filed an application seeking to bar the High Court judge overseeing their criminal trial, but it was dismissed.
Previously, the Supreme Court amended the Practice Direction on Further Disclosures, ruling that prosecutors are required to disclose only materials in their possession that are “connected to the case,” rather than all “relevant” materials.
However, the Deputy Attorney-General has now invoked the Court’s review jurisdiction. Dr. Justice Srem-Sai argued that the ordinary bench had effectively rewritten the Practice Direction by removing “relevance” without substituting any equivalent term.
He contended that this could compel practitioners to rely solely on possession, without assessing whether the requested materials are related to the issues on trial. He urged the Court to either restore the word “relevance” with its ordinary, non-technical meaning or replace it with the phrase “connected with the matter before the Court.”
Dr. Justice Srem-Sai emphasized that the criminal disclosure regime must ensure that there is some nexus between the materials requested and the case.