Ghana’s Deputy Attorney General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai has announced that the Supreme Court removed a key requirement for accused persons seeking evidence from prosecutors, according to a statement he issued explaining the legal implications of The Republic v. Adu-Boahene case.
Dr. Srem-Sai stated that prosecutors must now disclose all material obtained during investigations before trial begins, whether evidence supports guilt or could potentially exonerate the accused. This requirement strengthens constitutional rights to fair trial and defence, according to the Deputy Attorney General’s interpretation of the ruling.
The announcement follows an October 29, 2025 Supreme Court decision in the Adu-Boahene case. Dr. Srem-Sai explained that the court eliminated what legal practitioners refer to as the relevance rule, which previously governed what accused persons could obtain through further disclosure requests.
Previously, accused persons needed to satisfy two criteria when seeking additional evidence disclosures beyond initial prosecutorial filings. The first criterion required demonstrating that requested evidence had bearing on proving guilt or innocence. The second criterion, known as the possession rule, required showing that evidence came into investigators’ hands during investigation of the specific charges faced by the accused.
According to Dr. Srem-Sai’s explanation, the Supreme Court decision removes the relevance requirement. Accused persons now need only demonstrate that requested evidence was gathered by investigators during investigation related to their charges. Whether evidence proves relevant to the case will be determined at trial rather than at the disclosure request stage.
The law requires prosecutors to facilitate defence preparation by disclosing every piece of evidence investigators discovered during investigations. Initial disclosure filings before trial must include both inculpatory evidence showing guilt and exculpatory evidence that prosecutors know or believe could help demonstrate innocence.
Dr. Srem-Sai acknowledged that prosecutors cannot be trusted to voluntarily file every piece of evidence, particularly material that might show accused persons are not guilty. The legal framework therefore allows accused persons to ask courts to direct prosecutors to make further disclosures beyond initial filings.
However, the Deputy Attorney General emphasized that accused persons cannot use further disclosure opportunities as tactics to delay trials or convert prosecutors into defence counsel. Clear limits remain on what accused persons can obtain through seeking further disclosures, though he did not specify what those limits entail in his statement.
The possession rule remains in effect as the governing standard for further disclosure requests. Accused persons must establish that evidence they seek came into investigators’ possession during investigation of offences for which they face charges. Once this threshold is met, courts can order prosecutors to disclose the material regardless of whether its relevance to guilt or innocence has been established.
Dr. Srem-Sai described the development as a new law alert in his public statement explaining the Supreme Court decision. His announcement appears aimed at informing legal practitioners, accused persons, and the public about how the ruling changes procedures for obtaining evidence from prosecution before and during criminal trials.
The Deputy Attorney General’s explanation suggests the ruling affects case law and practice directions that previously governed disclosure procedures in Ghana’s criminal justice system. By eliminating the relevance criterion at the request stage, the decision potentially expands the range of material accused persons can access while preparing their defence.
Courts will determine during trial whether disclosed evidence ultimately proves relevant to proving or disproving charges. This shifts the relevance assessment from the pre-trial disclosure stage to the trial itself, according to Dr. Srem-Sai’s interpretation.
The announcement does not specify whether the Supreme Court decision provides detailed guidance on how courts should handle disclosure disputes under the revised framework, or whether lower courts issued any related procedural directions implementing the ruling.
Legal observers note that disclosure rules significantly impact how criminal cases proceed through Ghana’s justice system. Broader access to prosecution evidence can strengthen defence capabilities, but may also affect case preparation timelines and prosecutorial workloads depending on how courts implement the revised standards.
The Adu-Boahene case involved disputes over evidence disclosure, though specific details of the underlying criminal charges and the Supreme Court’s full reasoning in the October 29 decision were not included in the Deputy Attorney General’s public statement.
Dr. Srem-Sai serves as Deputy Attorney General in the Office of the Attorney General and Minister of Justice. His role includes providing legal guidance on court decisions affecting prosecution practices and criminal procedure in Ghana’s legal system.
Read What Deputy Attorney General Wrote:
NEW LAW ALERT
The law requires a prosecutor to facilitate an accused person’s defence. So, he is to disclose to the accused person every evidence which investigators found during investigations. So, before a trial begins, a prosecutor must file such disclosures.
The disclosures must include evidence which will show that the accused person is guilty. But that’s not all. It must also include evidence which the prosecutor knows or believes can help the accused person to show that she is not guilty.
Because the prosecutor cannot be trusted to voluntarily file every evidence (especially the one that he knows can show that the accused person is not guilty), the law allows the accused person to ask the court to direct the prosecutor to make further disclosures.
However, the accused person is not allowed to use the opportunity for further disclosures as a ploy to delay the trial or convert the prosecutor into defence counsel. So, there are limits to what the accused person can get from seeking further disclosures.
Before last week, October 29, when the Supreme Court decided The Republic v Adu-Boahene case, there were, by case law and practice direction, two criteria for determining what an accused person may get through further disclosures.
The first criterion is the RELEVANCE Rule. This says that an accused person can, by way of further disclosures, get from the prosecutor only evidence which has a bearing on proving that she is guilty or not guilty. If it is not relevant, it wont be disclosed.
The second is the POSSESSION rule. It says that the evidence which the accused person asks for must be evidence which came into the hands of investigators during the investigation of the offences which the accused person is charged with.
The Adu-Boahene case has changed this law: The RELEVANCE rule no longer applies. That is to say that an accused person doesn’t have to show that the evidence, disclosure of which she seeks, is relevant to proving anything. Relevance will be determined at the trial.
She only has to concern herself with the POSSESSION rule. That is – she just has to show that the evidence she seeks came into the investigators’ hands during the investigations of the offence which she is charged with.
Source: newsghana.com.gh
