The Supreme Court will on January 14, 2026 deliver its ruling on a request by the Deputy Attorney-General (DAG) asking the Court to review portions of its earlier decision in the case involving former National Signals Bureau boss, Kwabena Adu Boahen and his wife who are standing trial for stealing, money laundering, and using public office for private gain.
Adu Boahen and his wife had previously filed an application before the Supreme Court seeking to prohibit the High Court judge presiding over his criminal trial. The Court dismissed that application, clearing the way for the trial to continue.
However, in its ruling, the Supreme Court also revised a key aspect of the Practice Direction on Further Disclosures, holding that the prosecution is required to disclose materials that are in its possession and connected to the case, rather than materials that are in its possession and “relevant,” as originally stated.
DAG Invokes Review Jurisdiction
Unhappy with the removal of the word “relevance” from the disclosure criteria, the Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai invoked the Court’s review jurisdiction, arguing that the ordinary bench had effectively rewritten the Practice Direction by deleting “relevance” without inserting any equivalent term.
He warned that this could lead to practitioners relying solely on possession—without considering whether requested materials bear any connection to the issues on trial.
The DAG 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,” insisting that the criminal disclosure regime must require some nexus between the materials requested and the case.
Judicial Interventions
Members of the panel, including Justices Amadu Tanko and Lovelace Johnson, pressed the DAG to focus on the burden required for a review, reminding him that he must show exceptional circumstances.
The judges also intervened, cautioning the DAG to fairly represent the ordinary bench’s ruling, noting that it did state that disclosures must concern documents “material to the case.”
Respondents: No Basis for Review
Counsel for respondent Adu Boahen, Samuel Atta-Akyea, countered that the DAG had not met the strict threshold for invoking the Court’s review powers.
He maintained that:
No fundamental error of law has been demonstrated.
The ruling already addressed the concern by requiring materials to be “connected to the case.”
He also argued that the Court did not breach natural justice by not seeking further submissions on the meaning of relevance, as it is empowered to conduct its own legal research.
Next Steps
After the arguments, the Court adjourned proceedings and set January 14, 2026 for its ruling on whether “relevance” should be restored—or replaced—in the country’s criminal disclosure framework.
Adu Boahene Trial: I’m disappointed, not discouraged” — Atta Akyea after Supreme Court ruling
