High Court dismisses Gifty Oware-Mensah’s bid for Supreme Court referral

The High Court has thrown out a request by lawyers for former Deputy Director of the National Service Authority (NSA), Gifty Oware-Mensah, asking that issues arising from criminal case management practice directions be referred to the Supreme Court for constitutional interpretation.

The request followed an earlier court order directing Ms Oware-Mensah to submit a list of witnesses she intends to call, together with their addresses, should she be required to open her defence.

Her legal team argued that the directive conflicts with provisions of the 1992 Constitution and violates the accused person’s right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Based on this argument, they urged the High Court to seek an interpretation from the Supreme Court.

However, in its ruling, the court found that the applicant failed to establish the existence of a genuine constitutional issue warranting a referral and consequently dismissed the application in full.

After the decision, defence counsel, Gary Nomako Marfo, told the court that the team would apply for the written reasons behind the ruling and advise their client on the appropriate next steps. He also revealed that a Notice of Appeal had already been filed on January 20, 2026, challenging the order compelling the accused to file a list of witnesses and their addresses.

In the meantime, a Motion for Stay of Proceedings, filed on February 10, 2026, remains pending before the court. Although it was originally slated for hearing on February 17, the matter has been rescheduled to February 18, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. due to a scheduling concern raised by the prosecution.

Background

Gifty Oware-Mensah is facing multiple charges, including stealing and causing financial loss to the state, in connection with her tenure at the National Service Authority.

Prosecutors allege that she created 9,934 fictitious names in the NSA database and used her private firm, Blocks of Life Consult, to obtain a GH¢31.5 million loan from the Agricultural Development Bank (ADB). The loan was reportedly secured under the claim that the company had supplied goods to national service personnel on a hire-purchase basis.

Investigations, however, allegedly revealed that the supposed beneficiaries were nonexistent and that no goods were supplied. The prosecution further claims that the loan proceeds were paid into the company’s account and later transferred to other businesses linked to the accused.

The case is expected to resume on February 18, 2026, when the court is scheduled to hear the pending motion for stay of proceedings.