The High Court in Accra, hearing the criminal case involving former National Signals Bureau boss Kwabena Adu-Boahen and his wife Angela Adjei Boateng, has dismissed an application seeking to strike out portions of the prosecution’s written submissions in opposition to the accused persons’ submission of no case.
In its ruling, the court held that it was not its duty to investigate whether counsel’s written submissions accurately reflected the evidence led at trial or to expunge arguments on the grounds that they allegedly relied on non-existent evidence.
The court stressed that its responsibility was to determine the case based on evidence properly led in court and exhibits duly admitted into the record.
The application was moved by counsel for the accused persons, Samuel Atta Akyea, while Dr Justice Srem-Sai, a Deputy Attorney-General, opposed it on behalf of the prosecution in the case titled Republic v Adu-Boahene & 2 Others.
Atta Akyea alleges reliance on non-existent evidence
Moving the application, Atta Akyea prayed the court to strike out portions of the prosecution’s submissions filed on October 9, 2026, arguing that they contained material that was not supported by the record of proceedings.
He contended that the prosecution had attributed statements to witnesses who had not made such statements in their testimony and had also presented the contents of an exhibit in a manner he said was contrary to the rules of court, evidence and professional ethics.
He warned that allowing the disputed portions of the prosecution’s submissions to remain unchallenged could mislead the court and occasion a miscarriage of justice, particularly because the accused persons’ liberty and innocence were at stake in the criminal trial.
He maintained that there was a clear distinction between legal arguments based on reasonable inferences from evidence on record and submissions founded on evidence that did not exist.
Deputy Attorney-General opposes application.
Opposing the motion, Dr Justice Srem-Sai argued that the application did not invoke any recognised jurisdiction of the court.
He submitted that an affidavit in opposition was not necessary to contradict an allegation concerning the accuracy of the record where the evidence was already available for the court to examine.
According to him, the court could independently review the record and determine whether the prosecution’s arguments were supported by the evidence, without the need to strike out the written submissions.
The Deputy Attorney-General argued that the court had no general jurisdiction to expunge portions of a lawyer’s written address merely because the opposing party disputed their accuracy.
He distinguished written submissions from pleadings and affidavits, which may be struck out under applicable procedural rules in appropriate circumstances.
Dr Srem-Sai further submitted that written addresses were intended to assist the court and did not replace the judge’s responsibility to evaluate the evidence.
He described the application as an attempt to delay proceedings and urged the court to dismiss it.
Court explains reasons for dismissal.
In dismissing the application, the court emphasised the limited role of written addresses in judicial proceedings.
The court explained that a written address is a document filed by counsel to assist or persuade a judge on the applicable law and the facts of a case. It is not a substitute for evidence on the record.
It held that where counsel relies on non-existent evidence in a written address, such reliance has no probative value in determining the case.
The judge stated that the court must base its decision solely on the evidence or testimony of witnesses on record and exhibits that have been properly admitted.
The court further held that even if counsel makes representations or misrepresentations about the evidence in a written address, that does not determine the outcome of the case, because the judge remains responsible for assessing the actual evidence.
Addressing the defence’s argument that the disputed portions should be expunged, the court said counsel who believes an opponent has relied on non-existent evidence is not without a remedy.
It noted that, under the practice governing written addresses, the defence had an opportunity to respond to the prosecution’s submissions and had taken advantage of that opportunity by filing a reply.
In the judge’s view, the duty of counsel was to draw the court’s attention to any alleged misrepresentation, rather than ask the court to undertake a separate inquiry into the accuracy of the opponent’s written address and strike out the disputed portions.
The court stated that, whether or not its attention was drawn to the alleged misrepresentation, it was required to rely only on evidence properly led at trial and exhibits properly admitted to arrive at a fair and just conclusion.
On the basis of those reasons, the court held that it was not its duty to investigate whether the prosecution’s written submissions accurately reflected the evidence or to strike them out on that basis.
Discussion about this post