2021
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Writing for a unanimous panel, Justice I. O. Tanko Amadu of the Supreme Court of Ghana granted an application invoking the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction to quash rulings of the High Court (Commercial Division), Accra, presided over by Justice P. Bright Mensah (JA), in Suit No. CR/0248/2020. During case management, the High Court admitted prosecution documents—including an exhibit identified as NAD—before trial and before any witness had taken an oath. The applicant argued that no statutory or constitutional framework authorized admitting evidence at the case management stage. The Supreme Court analyzed the Chief Justice’s Practice Direction on Disclosures and Case Management in Criminal Proceedings (2018), the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules (C.I. 47), and Section 6(1) of the Evidence Act (NRCD 323). Distinguishing witness statements from disclosures, the Court held that witness statements are for use at trial, and objections to admissibility must be made when evidence is offered. Finding a serious error of law patent on the face of the record, the Court quashed the High Court’s ruling and directed that any objections to witness statement content be heard only after the witness has produced the statement at trial.
AMADU, JSC:-
(1) The application before the Court invokes the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction against the ruling of the High Court dated the 30th day of July 2020. It is exhibited to the affidavit in support of the application and marked KD2. The ruling was delivered pursuant to an objection raised by the Applicant to the admission of some evidence emanating from the prosecution. This took place at the case management stage of the proceedings.
(2) The background to the ruling of the High Court is aptly summarized by reference to paragraphs 8 to 12 of the affidavit in support of the application wherein it is deposed as follows;
“8. That in the course of Case Management Conference the Trial
Judge purported to admit documents into evidence prior to the commencement of the trial and in the absence of the witness through whom the Prosecution intends to tender these documents.
9. That owing to the absence of any express rules in the Criminal
Procedure and Other Offences Act, 1960 (Act 30), the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), or the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) for the conduct of Case Management and moreover for the admission of evidence prior to trial, an objection was raised to the admission of evidence by defence counsel.
10. That by a ruling dated the 30th day of July 2020, the Trial Judge
overruled the objection and declared that the admission into evidence of the document tendered by the Prosecution on behalf of its intended witness did not violate the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323). A copy of the 30th July ruling is attached hereto and marked Exhibit KD2.
11. That by a subsequent ruling and proceedings dated the 10th
October, 2020 as well as proceedings for the 13th and 14th October, 2020, the Learned Trial Judge overruled further objections and continued to admit other documents into evidence when no witness has mounted the witness box to testify. All these documents have been admitted into evidence as exhibits marked or labeled accordingly. A copy of the ruling and proceedings are attached hereto and marked Exhibit KD 3.
12. The said rulings and subsequent admission of documents into
evidence at this pre-trial stage were not warranted by any rule of law and procedure. They constitute a grave error of law which is fundamental on the face of the record.”
(3) The Applicant in the instant proceedings therefore complains about the Court’s decision to admit into evidence documents emanating from the prosecution when trial had no