By Morkporkpor Anku
Accra, May 20, GNA – The Supreme Court has declined an application by Mrs Gifty Oware-Mensah, former Deputy Executive Director, National Service Authority (NSA), seeking a stay of proceedings in an ongoing criminal trial at the High Court pending the determination of a constitutional challenge.
The accused had filed an appeal against the decision of a High Court which ordered her to file a list of names and addresses of witnesses she would call when the need arises for her to mount a defence.
She later filed a writ at the Supreme Court seeking the constitution’s interpretation of Article 19(2)(c) and 10 vis-à-vis the practice direction on disclosures in criminal trial pursuant to which the High Court made its order.
She then followed it up with an application for stay of proceedings pending the determination of the writ.
That notwithstanding, the trial court, presided over by Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, declined to pause the trial pending the determination of the application by the apex court.
Mrs. Oware-Mensah was charged for causing financial loss of GH¢6,956,157.47 by causing the state to pay the said amount as interest to the Agricultural Development Bank (adb) on a GH¢31,502,091.40 loan inappropriately authorised for Blocks of Life Consult, which she benefitted from.
She has also been accused of stealing and laundering GH¢31,502,091.40 by transferring it from the NSA higher-purchase escrow account with ADB to Blocks of Life Consult “for the purpose of disguising the illicit origin of the money, knowing it to be proceeds of crime.”
She pleaded not guilty to all the five charges read out by the court clerk, and was granted a bail of GH¢10 million with three sureties, two of whom must be justified with landed property within Accra.
Mr Gary Nimako Marfo, counsel for Mrs Oware-Mensah, argued before the apex court that the application was linked to a writ filed on March 3, 2026, challenging the constitutionality of portions of the Practice Direction on Disclosures and Case Management.
According to counsel, the writ sought interpretation of Articles 19(2)(c) and 19(10) of the 1992 Constitution in relation to provisions requiring accused persons to disclose the names and addresses of witnesses they intended to call during the Case Management Conference (CMC) stage of criminal proceedings.
Mr Marfo submitted that Article 19(2)(c) guaranteed the presumption of innocence, while Article 19(10) protected accused persons from being compelled to give evidence against themselves.
He argued that the requirement for accused persons to file witness lists before deciding whether to open their defence amounted to compelling them to disclose their defence strategy prematurely.
Counsel told the Court that the High Court had ordered the defence on December 22, 2025, to file witness lists within seven days or the court would “advise itself.”
He said the defence informed the High Court that it was unable to file witness lists at that stage because the prosecution’s evidence would determine whether witnesses would eventually be called.
A panel of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Senyo Dzamefe and Gabriel Scott Pwamang, questioned the basis for halting the criminal proceedings.
Justice Dzamefe observed that an accused person still retained the option not to comply with the directive if they chose not to call witnesses.
Justice Pwamang also noted that accused persons could still decide later in the trial to call witnesses with leave of the court, even if no witness list had initially been filed.
Justice Baffoe-Bonnie said the High Court had not held the applicant in contempt or barred the defence from filing witness lists at a later stage if necessary.
He said the constitutional challenge could proceed independently without affecting the continuation of the criminal trial at the High Court.
The Court held that the application did not disclose sufficient grounds to warrant a stay of proceedings and consequently declined to halt the ongoing criminal trial.
Dr Justice Srem-Sai, Deputy Attorney-General, appeared for the respondent, while Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah and Nana Benyin Kwapong also appeared for the applicant.
GNA
Reporter: Morkporkpor Anku
[email protected]