Supreme Court declines AG’s bid to review ruling on Adu-Boahene case

The Supreme Court has, by a 6–1 majority decision, dismissed an application by the Attorney-General seeking a review of its earlier ruling on criminal disclosures in the case involving former National Signals Bureau Director-General, Kwabena Adu-Boahene, and his wife.

Justice Yonny Kulendi delivered the lone dissenting opinion.

The couple is currently standing trial on charges of stealing, money laundering, and using public office for private gain. They had earlier applied to the Supreme Court to restrain the High Court judge handling the matter, but that application was dismissed. In the same decision, the Supreme Court also revised the Practice Direction on Further Disclosures, holding that prosecutors are only required to disclose materials in their possession that are connected to the case, rather than all materials described as “relevant”.

It was this aspect of the ruling that prompted the Attorney-General to invoke the Court’s review jurisdiction.

The Attorney-General argued that by effectively removing the word “relevance” from the disclosure framework without substituting it with an equivalent standard, the Supreme Court had, in practical terms, rewritten the law on criminal disclosure. He contended that the decision risked narrowing disclosure obligations to mere possession of documents, without sufficient regard to whether the materials sought had a meaningful bearing on the issues before the court.

Represented by Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai, the Attorney-General urged the Court to either restore the word “relevance” in its ordinary sense or replace it with language such as “connected with the matter before the court”, in order to preserve a clear nexus between requested materials and the subject of the trial. He maintained that without such clarification, the disclosure regime could be applied too restrictively, to the detriment of fair trial standards.

However, the Supreme Court, by a 6–1 majority, rejected the application and declined to review its earlier decision.

The Court has indicated that its full, reasoned judgment will be delivered on 4th February.

The panel that determined the matter was composed of Justice Lovelace Johnson, who presided, Justice Amadu Tanko, Justice Yonny Kulendi, Justice Senyo Dzamefe, Justice Richard Adjei-Frimpong, Justice Sir Dennis Agyei, and Justice Kwaku Tawiah Ackaah-Boafo.

MyJoyOnline