Supreme Court Sets January 14 for Ruling on Review in Adu Boahen Disclosure Case

The Supreme Court will on January 14, 2026 deliver its ruling on an application filed by the Deputy Attorney-General (DAG) seeking a review of a key aspect of the Court’s earlier judgment in the criminal trial involving former National Signals Bureau Director Kwabena Adu Boahen and his wife.

The couple is standing trial on charges including stealing, money laundering, and using public office for private gain.

Background to the Review Request

Adu Boahen and his wife had previously asked the Supreme Court to bar the High Court judge presiding over their trial. The Court dismissed the application, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.

However, in its ruling, the Supreme Court modified a crucial portion of the Practice Direction on Further Disclosures, holding that the prosecution is obligated to disclose materials in its possession that are “connected to the case.”
This effectively removed the word “relevant” from the disclosure criteria.

DAG Challenges Removal of ‘Relevance’

Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai has taken issue with this revision.

He argues that deleting the term “relevant” without replacing it with a legally equivalent standard risks creating confusion in criminal proceedings—allowing practitioners to request disclosure solely on the basis of possession rather than any meaningful connection to the issues at trial.

The DAG therefore asked the Court to:

Restore the word “relevance” (in its ordinary, non-technical meaning), or

Replace it with the phrase “connected with the matter before the Court.”

He insisted that Ghana’s criminal disclosure regime must require a demonstrable linkage between the requested materials and the case.

Judges Question Review Threshold

Members of the review panel, including Justices Amadu Tanko and Lovelace Johnson, cautioned the DAG to show exceptional circumstances, stressing that a review is not an appeal.

They also noted that the ordinary bench had already clarified that disclosures must concern materials “material to the case,” and urged the DAG to represent the earlier judgment accurately.

Respondents Oppose Review

Counsel for Adu Boahen, Samuel Atta-Akyea, argued that the DAG had failed to meet the stringent requirements for triggering the Court’s review jurisdiction.

He maintained that:

No fundamental legal error has been demonstrated.

The Court already addressed the concern by requiring disclosures to be “connected to the case.”

He further held that the Supreme Court did not breach natural justice by not seeking further submissions on the meaning of “relevance,” as it is entitled to conduct its own legal analysis.

Next Steps

The Supreme Court has adjourned the matter and will rule on January 14, 2026 whether the term “relevance” should be restored—or replaced—in Ghana’s criminal disclosure framework.