The High Court in Accra has dismissed an application seeking to refer portions of a practice direction which require accused persons in criminal trials to file the list of defence witnesses and their address to the Supreme Court for constitutional interpretation.
The application was filed by a former Deputy Executive Director of the National Service Authority (NSA), Gifty Oware-Mensah, who has been accused of causing financial loss of more than GH¢38 million to the state.
During case management conference, the trial court directed the accused person to file the list of defence witnesses and their address.
It is the contention of her lawyers that the order for her to file the list of defence witnesses and their addresses was inconsistent with Article 19(2)(c) of the 1992 constitution, the provision that presumes anyone charged with a criminal offence as innocent until proven guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Practice directions are not part of the laws of Ghana but form part of the administration of justice.
The Practice Direction Disclosure and Case Management in Criminal Proceedings 2018, which was developed in 2018 and signed by the former Chief Justice, Sophia Akuffo, governs criminal trials to ensure expeditious trials and proper management of cases.
Specially 2(3) (a), compels an accused person to disclose the names and addresses of all witnesses he or she intends to call at the case management stage.
It states, “Without prejudice to the constitutional presumption of the innocence of the Accused person, the Accused person shall, for purposes of case management, disclose the names and addresses of all witnesses he expects to call, should the Court call upon him to enter into his defence at the close of case for the Prosecution”.
It is this portion that the accused, through her lawyer, Gary Nimako Marfo, is challenging.
It is based on this that the accused was praying the court to refer the issue raised to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
However, trial judge today, dismissed the application to refer the case to the Supreme Court on grounds that the accused failed to demonstrate the need for interpretation to warrant a stay of proceedings.
The case has been adjourned to February 18, 2026 for the consideration of an application for stay of proceedings to be determined.
