The High Court in Accra has dismissed former Deputy Executive Director of National Service Authority (NSA), Gifty Oware-Mensah’s application seeking to have her trial put on hold and referred an issue to the Supreme Court for interpretation as “lacking merit.”
The former Deputy NSA boss has been ordered by the Court, presided over by Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, to file the list and addresses of her witnesses in the Case Management Conference stage, in the case in which she has been charged for stealing.
Dissatisfied with that order, through her lawyers led by Garry Nimako Marfo, she filed a motion to ask the High Court to refer the case to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
She cited inconsistencies between the Practice Direction on Disclosure and Case Management Proceedings 2018 and the 1992 Constitution.
Specifically, she argued that an order requiring an accused person to disclose the names and addresses of all witnesses at the case management stage (Part 2(3)(a) of the Practice Direction) contravenes the presumption of innocence guaranteed under Article 19(2)(c) of the Constitution.
But. her submission was vehemently opposed by the Prosecution, led by Director of Public Prosecutions, Mrs. Yvonne Attakora Obuobisa, on grounds that there was no ambiguity about the practice direction and it does not conflict with provisions in the 1992 Constitution.
Ruling on the application on Tuesday, February 10, 2026, the presiding Judge, Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, said the application for a referral “lacks merit” and same has been dismissed.
The Court has since directed the parties to apply for the full ruling of the Court for the reasons.
Gifty Oware-Mensah has been charged for allegedly causing financial loss to the tune of GH¢38 million in relation to the National Service Ghost names scandal.
She pleaded not guilty to a count of stealing, two counts of willfully causing financial loss to the republic, a count each of using public office for profit, and money laundering, and was granted bail.
The former Deputy Executive Director of the National Service Authority (NSA), Gifty Oware-Mensah, has been released on bail after executing the conditions surrounding her GH¢10 million bail sum.
She has been accused of causing financial loss of more than GH¢38 million to the state and has denied all the charges leveled against her.
Application
In her application, which was moved by her lawyers on January 29, 2026, she argued that the Practice Direction’s requirement is at odds with Section 11(2) and 15 of the Evidence Act, which place the burden of proof on the prosecution.
To buttress her point, she referenced Article 19(10) of the Constitution, which protects an accused person from being compelled to give evidence at trial.
Additionally, the defense takes issue with Part 5(f) of the Practice Direction, which allows for trials to be heard on a daily basis or at short adjournments, arguing that this breaches Article 19(2)(E) of the Constitution, which guarantees an accused person adequate time and facilities to prepare their defense.
The defense cites several cases, including State v Sowah & Essel (1961) and Republic vs High Court General Jurisdiction, Accra Exparte Zenator Rawlings (2015/16), to support their argument that the matter should be referred to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
DPP’s opposition
Director of Public Prosecutions, Mrs. Yvonne Attakora Obuobisa, who represented the State, opposed the defense’s application for a referral to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Practice Direction on Disclosure and Case Management Proceedings 2018 is not inconsistent with Article 19(2)(c), (E), and 10 of the 1992 Constitution.
The DPP argued that Part 2(3)(a) of the Practice Direction, which requires an accused person to disclose the names and addresses of witnesses, is intended to assist the accused in preparing their defense and does not infringe on their presumption of innocence.
The prosecution noted that the requirement only applies if the court calls upon the accused to enter their defense at the close of the prosecution’s case.
The DPP also argued that Part 5(f) of the Practice Direction, which allows for trials to be heard on a daily basis, is intended to ensure expeditious justice and is not inconsistent with Article 19(2)(e), which guarantees an accused person adequate time and facilities to prepare their defense.
The prosecution cites the case of Republic vs Eugene Baffoe Bonnie, which established that the prosecution has a duty to make full disclosure to the accused, and argues that the Practice Direction is consistent with this principle.
The prosecution concludes that there is no genuine case for interpretation and urges the court to rule is that the Practice Direction is not inconsistent with the Constitution, and therefore no referral to the Supreme Court is necessary.
Ruling
Justice Kocuvie-Tay, in her ruling, said having considered submissions made, the court is of the view that the accused has not demonstrated that “a genuine question has arisen for the matter to be referred to the Supreme Court for interpretation.”
The application, the Court said, was “lacking merit” and accordingly dismissed it.
The Court, after considering the submissions made, has dismissed the application for lacking merit.
Fresh application
Following the dismissal of his client’s application for referral, Counsel for the Accused, Garry Nimako, said, “In regard to the application for a referral having been dismissed, we will apply for the full copy of the reasons for the dismissal and advise the client as to the way forward.”
That said, he said, “The accused person has filed a Notice of Appeal on January 20, 2026, in respect of the order to compel her to file a list of witnesses and their addresses.”
“On the back of that, a motion for Stay of Proceedings has been filed at the registry of this Court on February 10, and the return date has been fixed for February 17 for it to be heard,” Counsel said.
Counsel was therefore quick to assert that the prosecution, led by the DPP, has not been served and “we will take steps to serve the AG with this application whilst also taking steps to study the ruling of this court and advise her accordingly.”
The DPP had no opposition to Counsel for the accused’s submissions, saying the February 17 date clashes with another case and suggested February 18.
Adjournment
Justice Kocuvie-Tay said, having listened to Counsel for the accused person, the trial would be stayed till the return date of the said application, which is February 17, for the consideration of the application for the stay of proceedings.
“However, Counsel for the Republic has just informed the court that February 17 clashes with other matters, and in the circumstances and with agreement with other parties, the case is adjourned to February 18, 2026.”
