Over Disclosure Rules in Adu-Boahene’sTrial
By Prince Ahenkorah
Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai has ignited a fierce legal battle with the Supreme Court, challenging its recent overhaul of criminal disclosure rules that could flood trials with irrelevant materials and hobble anti-corruption efforts, just as the high-profile graft case against former National Signals Bureau (NSB) chief Kwabena Adu-Boahene and his wife hangs in the balance.
The dispute boils down to a pivotal shift: the Supreme Court now mandates prosecutors to disclose all documents “connected to the case” in their possession, scrapping the prior “relevance” threshold a move Srem-Sai decries as a reckless rewrite that invites abuse and derails justice.
The apex court will rule on his urgent review request on January 14, 2026, in a decision poised to reshape disclosure practices across Ghana’s courts and intensify scrutiny on the fight against official corruption.
Adu-Boahene, once a key security operative, and his wife face grave charges of stealing public funds, money laundering, and exploiting public office for personal profit.
Their earlier ploy to disqualify the presiding High Court judge was firmly rejected by the Supreme Court, paving the way for the trial to proceed until this disclosure controversy erupted as a potential roadblock.
In a landmark earlier ruling, the Supreme Court amended the Practice Direction on Further Disclosures, replacing “relevant” with “connected to the case” to broaden access to evidence.
Srem-Sai fired back by invoking the court’s review powers, blasting the change as an unauthorized overhaul that lets defendants demand files based solely on state possession, without ties to the charges at hand.
“Reinstate ‘relevance’ in its straightforward meaning, or limit disclosures to what’s directly linked to the trial,” Srem-Sai argued forcefully, warning that without such guardrails, criminal cases risk drowning in extraneous data, undermining efficiency and public confidence in prosecutions.
The justices, including Amadu Tanko and Lovelace Johnson, pushed back sharply during hearings, demanding Srem-Sai prove “exceptional circumstances” for the rare review and accusing him of misrepresenting the original decision which already required disclosures to be “material” to the case.
Adu-Boahene’s lawyer, Samuel Atta-Akyea, vehemently opposed the bid, calling it a baseless overreach.
He contended no grave error tainted the ruling, that the “connected” standard adequately resolves disclosure issues, and that the court’s independent research on “relevance” violated no principles of natural justice.
“The threshold for review is unmet dismiss this outright,” Atta-Akyea urged.
The Supreme Court adjourned after heated submissions, with its January 14 verdict set to determine if “relevance” returns or gets rephrased, sending shockwaves through Ghana’s legal system. Prosecutors warn of trial delays in corruption probes; defenders praise the push for transparency.
The outcome could fortify or fracture the machinery pursuing high-stakes cases like Adu-Boahene’s, amid growing public demands for accountability.