The Supreme Court has set January 14, 2026, to take a decision on a request by the Deputy Attorney-General for the Court to review portions of its previous ruling in the case involving former National Signals Bureau boss, Kwabena Adu Boahen and his wife.
The duo are standing trial for stealing, money laundering, and using public office for private gain.
The couple initially filed an application before the court seeking to prohibit the High Court judge presiding over their criminal trial, but got it dismissed.
The Supreme Court revised the Practice Direction on Further Disclosures, ruling that prosecutors need only disclose materials in their possession that are connected to the case, rather than all “relevant” materials.
But the Deputy Attorney-General invoked the Court’s review jurisdiction. Dr Justice Srem-Sai argued that the ordinary bench had effectively rewritten the Practice Direction by deleting “relevance” without inserting any equivalent term.
According to him, this could force practitioners to rely solely on possession, without considering whether requested materials bear any connection to the issues on trial.
He urged the Court to restore the word “relevance” with its ordinary, non-technical meaning, or replace it with the phrase “connected with the matter before the Court.”
He insists that the criminal disclosure regime must require some nexus between the materials requested and the case.
