The Supreme Court has, by a 6-1 majority decision, dismissed an application filed by the Attorney-General seeking a review of its earlier ruling on criminal disclosures in the case involving the former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau, Mr Kwabena Adu-Boahene, and his wife.
Justice Yonny Kulendi delivered the lone dissenting opinion.
Mr Adu-Boahene and his wife are currently standing trial on charges of stealing, money laundering and using public office for private gain. Earlier, the couple had applied to the Supreme Court to restrain the High Court judge handling the case, but that application was dismissed.
In the same decision, the Supreme Court also revised the practice direction on further disclosures, holding that prosecutors are required to disclose only materials in their possession that are connected to the case, rather than all materials described as "relevant".
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
Related Articles
- Election 2024: EC to print 19.1m ballots ...captures 18.7m on provisional registerOctober 15, 2024
- No cause for alarm on leaked audiotape--Irbad IbrahimMarch 2, 2019
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 consideration of whether the materials sought had a meaningful bearing on the issues before the court.
Represented by the 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, potentially undermining fair trial standards.
However, the Supreme Court, by a 6-1 majority decision, rejected the application and declined to review its earlier ruling.
The court has indicated that its full, reasoned judgment will be delivered on February 4.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
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.
-
