The Supreme Court will on 14 January 2026 deliver its ruling on an application by the Deputy Attorney-General (DAG) seeking a review of parts of the Court’s earlier decision in the case 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.

Adu Boahen and his wife had previously asked the Supreme Court to prohibit the High Court judge presiding over their criminal trial.

The court dismissed that application, allowing the trial to proceed.

In its decision, however, the Supreme Court also amended a key section of the Practice Direction on Further Disclosures. It held that prosecutors are required to disclose materials in their possession that are connected to the case, rather than those deemed “relevant,” as the Practice Direction had originally stated.

The Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, has challenged the amendment, arguing that by removing the word “relevance”, the ordinary bench had effectively rewritten the Practice Direction without inserting an equivalent standard.

He said the ruling could encourage legal practitioners to rely solely on possession of material, without assessing whether the requested documents have any connection to the issues before the court.

Srem-Sai has asked the Supreme Court to reinstate the term “relevant” in its ordinary, non-technical sense or to adopt the phrase “connected with the matter before the court.”

He argued that the criminal disclosure regime must require a clear link between the materials sought and the case itself.