Court gives prosecution final chance in Mamprobi Hospital baby theft case to file disclosures

The Gender-Based Violence Court in Accra has issued a final ultimatum to the prosecution in the high-profile Mamprobi Hospital baby theft case, demanding the submission of all outstanding disclosure documents. This development underscores the critical importance of timely and comprehensive disclosure in Ghana's criminal justice system, a principle enshrined in the 1992 Constitution and reinforced by recent Supreme Court pronouncements. The case, involving a 33-year-old trader accused of child stealing, has garnered significant public attention and highlights the procedural challenges that can delay justice, particularly concerning the accused's right to a fair trial. Failure to comply with this final order could lead to the striking out of the case, with profound implications for both the victim and the accused.

The wheels of justice in Ghana's criminal courts often turn on the meticulous adherence to procedural rules, none more fundamental than the principle of disclosure. In a recent and widely reported development, the Gender-Based Violence Court at the Police Headquarters in Accra granted the prosecution a final opportunity to file crucial disclosure documents in the Mamprobi Hospital baby theft case. This decision, coming after months of delays attributed to unsigned witness statements, places the prosecution under immense pressure and brings into sharp focus the constitutional imperative of ensuring a fair trial through comprehensive pre-trial disclosure.

The case involves Latifa Salifu, a 33-year-old trader, who stands accused of child stealing following the alleged abduction of a newborn from the Mamprobi Hospital in February 2026. The court's stern warning that it would strike out the case if the prosecution fails to comply with this final directive highlights the judiciary's commitment to upholding procedural fairness and preventing undue delays. This article delves into the legal framework governing disclosure in Ghana, examines the implications of this judicial ultimatum, and considers the broader impact on criminal justice administration.

At its core, this situation underscores a fundamental tension in criminal proceedings: the prosecution's duty to present a robust case balanced against the accused's constitutional right to adequate facilities for their defence. The Mamprobi Hospital case serves as a timely reminder to legal practitioners of the stringent requirements for disclosure and the potential repercussions of non-compliance, shaping the trajectory of a case that has already captured national attention due to its sensitive nature and the vulnerability of the victim.

The right to a fair trial, a cornerstone of Ghana's legal system, is firmly entrenched in Article 19 of the 1992 Constitution. Specifically, Article 19(2)(e) and (g) guarantee an accused person adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence, and the right to examine witnesses. This constitutional mandate forms the bedrock of disclosure obligations in criminal proceedings, ensuring that an accused person is not ambushed by evidence at trial and can effectively challenge the prosecution's case. Prior to significant reforms, the scope of disclosure, particularly in summary trials, was often a contentious issue, leading to calls for greater clarity and enforceability.

The legal landscape for disclosure underwent a significant transformation following the Supreme Court's landmark decision in *Republic v Eugene Baffoe-Bonnie and 4 Others* in 2018. This ruling unequivocally affirmed the right of accused persons, even in summary trials, to access all documents in the possession of the prosecution, irrespective of whether the prosecution intended to rely on them. The Court emphasized that a trial cannot be considered fair if the prosecution withholds relevant materials, potentially springing a surprise on the defence. This was further refined by the Supreme Court in *The Republic v Adu-Boahene* on October 29, 2025, which abolished the 'Relevance rule,' meaning an accused person no longer needs to prove the relevance of requested evidence, only that it was in the investigators' possession.

In response to the *Baffoe-Bonnie* decision, the Chief Justice of Ghana issued a Practice Direction for Disclosure and Case Management in Criminal Proceedings, effective November 1, 2018. This directive formalized the prosecution's duty to disclose a wide array of materials, including all witness statements (whether or not the witnesses will be called), relevant documents, photographs of real evidence, audio/video recordings, and any exculpatory evidence. The Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30), which governs criminal procedure in Ghana, provides the overarching statutory framework within which these disclosure rules operate. The Gender-Based Violence Court, a specialized court established to expedite cases involving domestic violence and vulnerable persons, including children, has jurisdiction over offences such as child stealing, making it the appropriate forum for the Mamprobi case.

The court's decision to grant a "final opportunity" for disclosure in the Mamprobi Hospital baby theft case is a stark reminder of the judiciary's role in enforcing constitutional rights and procedural fairness. The prosecution's explanation of delays due to unsigned witness statements, while a practical challenge, does not diminish the accused's right to adequate facilities for defence. Under the Chief Justice's Practice Direction, the prosecution is mandated to file and serve all outstanding disclosure materials at least two clear days before the Case Management Conference. Failure to meet such deadlines, especially after repeated warnings, can have severe consequences, including the striking out of the case, which would effectively terminate the proceedings against the accused, Latifa Salifu.

The implications of striking out a case are profound. For the victim, Precious Ankomah, and the wider public, it could mean a denial of justice in a case that has generated considerable public outcry. For the accused, while it would lead to freedom, it would also highlight a systemic failure in the prosecution's ability to prepare its case diligently. This scenario underscores the delicate balance courts must strike between ensuring expeditious justice and upholding the fundamental rights of the accused, particularly the presumption of innocence and the right against self-incrimination, which some scholars argue are challenged by certain aspects of Ghana's 2018 disclosure regime requiring premature defence disclosure.

The evolution of disclosure rules in Ghana, particularly through cases like *Baffoe-Bonnie* and *Adu-Boahene*, demonstrates a clear judicial trend towards broader and more robust disclosure obligations on the prosecution. The scrapping of the 'Relevance rule' in *Adu-Boahene* signifies a shift, placing a greater onus on the prosecution to disclose all materials in its possession, regardless of its perceived utility to the defence. This ensures that the defence has a complete picture of the evidence, enabling them to formulate an informed strategy and preventing 'trial by ambush.' The current situation in the Mamprobi case, where the prosecution is struggling with basic witness statements, suggests a lapse in adherence to these established principles and practice directions.

Furthermore, the fact that this case is before a Gender-Based Violence Court is significant. These courts were established to provide a specialized and expedited forum for cases involving vulnerable individuals, particularly women and children. Delays in disclosure, therefore, not only undermine general principles of criminal procedure but also run contrary to the very ethos of these specialized courts, which aim for timely and sensitive resolution of such matters. The court's firm stance reflects an imperative to maintain the integrity and efficiency of these specialized judicial mechanisms.

The final opportunity granted to the prosecution in the Mamprobi Hospital baby theft case serves as a critical juncture, not only for the parties involved but for the broader application of criminal procedure in Ghana. For prosecuting attorneys, this case is a potent reminder of the non-negotiable duty to comply with disclosure requirements, as mandated by the Constitution, the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30), and the Chief Justice's Practice Direction. Failure to secure witness statements and other relevant documents in a timely manner can jeopardize an otherwise strong case and erode public confidence in the justice system.

Defence counsel, on the other hand, must remain vigilant in asserting their clients' constitutional rights to full disclosure, leveraging the precedents set by the Supreme Court in cases like *Republic v Eugene Baffoe-Bonnie and 4 Others* and *The Republic v Adu-Boahene*. The outcome of the Mamprobi case on July 8, 2026, will be closely watched, as it will either reaffirm the judiciary's commitment to enforcing procedural fairness or highlight persistent challenges in the prosecution's adherence to these vital principles. Ultimately, the integrity of Ghana's criminal justice system hinges on the diligent and timely execution of all procedural obligations, ensuring that justice is not only done but is seen to be done for all parties.