|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Introduction
The Court of Appeal’s decision to acquit and discharge Sedina Christine Tamakloe Attionu, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Microfinance and Small Loans Centre (MASLOC), has become one of the most significant criminal justice decisions in recent years in Ghana. The ruling overturned a 2024 High Court judgment that had convicted her on dozens of criminal charges and sentenced her to ten years’ imprisonment.
The judgment has generated intense legal and political debate. While some view it as a reaffirmation of the constitutional rights of accused persons and the strict standards required in criminal prosecutions, others believe it represents a setback in the fight against corruption.
The State’s Case Against Sedina
The prosecution alleged that while serving as Chief Executive Officer of MASLOC, Sedina Tamakloe, together with another accused, Daniel Axim, engaged in a series of unlawful transactions involving public funds and state resources (see pages 2 to 5 of the Court of Appeal judgment).
The Republic filed 78 criminal charges against the two accused persons. These included conspiracy to steal, stealing, wilfully causing financial loss to the State, causing loss to public property, improper payment of public funds, money laundering, unauthorised commitments resulting in financial obligations for the State, and breaches of the Public Procurement Act.
According to the prosecution, the accused persons diverted public funds, made irregular payments, and approved transactions in violation of the law, thereby causing financial loss to the State. Throughout the trial, the prosecution called several witnesses and tendered documentary evidence in an attempt to establish the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
Sedina Tamakloe Leaving the Jurisdiction
During the criminal trial before the High Court, Sedina Tamakloe attended a substantial part of the proceedings. However, she later applied for permission to travel abroad for medical treatment. The trial court granted her request and adjourned the case to enable her to return and continue participating in the proceedings.
When the matter was called on the adjourned date, she did not return to Ghana. The prosecution subsequently applied to continue the trial in her absence. The High Court granted the application and proceeded with the trial in absentia, relying on the provisions of Ghana’s criminal procedure laws that permit criminal proceedings to continue under certain circumstances where an accused person voluntarily absents herself after the commencement of the trial (see page 37 of the Court of Appeal judgement).
The continuation of the proceedings in her absence later became one of the issues discussed during the appeal, although it was not the principal reason for the Court of Appeal’s decision to quash the convictions.
The High Court’s Decision
In December 2024, the High Court found Sedina Tamakloe guilty on all the charges preferred against her. The court concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and imposed various prison sentences ranging from six months to ten years, with the sentences to run concurrently. The effective sentence was therefore ten years’ imprisonment, Court of Appeal records have revealed.
Her co-accused, Daniel Axim, was also convicted on several counts and sentenced by the court. (See page 38 of the Court of Appeal judgement)
The High Court’s judgment was welcomed by many who regarded it as an important milestone in Ghana’s anti-corruption efforts and as evidence that public officials could be held accountable for the misuse of public resources.
Filing the Appeal Against the High Court’s Decision
Dissatisfied with the judgment, Sedina Tamakloe appealed against both her conviction and sentence. Records of the Court of Appeal showed that the Notice of Appeal was filed on 9th May 2024 (see page 41 of the Court of Appeal judgement).
Among the grounds of appeal were that several charges failed to disclose the essential ingredients of the offences created by statute, that the prosecution had failed to establish the offences beyond reasonable doubt, and that the trial judge improperly shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution onto the defence. She also challenged aspects of the evidence relied upon by the trial court.
The appeal invited the Court of Appeal to determine whether the convictions could be sustained in law, having regard to the Constitution, the Evidence Act, and the applicable criminal statutes.
The Court of Appeal’s Decision
The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal and quashed all 78 convictions entered against Sedina Tamakloe.
The Court held that 34 of the counts on the charge sheet were fundamentally defective because they failed to disclose the essential statutory ingredients of the offences charged. A criminal charge, the Court explained, must clearly state every legal element of the offence to enable an accused person to know precisely the case she must answer (see pages 60 to 70 of the Court of Appeal judgement).
The Court further held that the trial judge repeatedly shifted the burden of proof onto the accused person instead of requiring the prosecution to prove every element of the offences beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasised that the constitutional presumption of innocence remains one of the cornerstones of Ghana’s criminal justice system and that the burden of proof rests throughout on the prosecution except in limited statutory exceptions (see pages 72 to 73 of the Court of Appeal judgement).
In addition, the Court found that portions of the prosecution’s evidence consisted of inadmissible hearsay. Since the predicate offences had not been properly established, the convictions for money laundering could not stand because they depended on proof of those underlying offences (see pages 74 to 78 of the Court of Appeal judgement).
Having reached these conclusions, the Court quashed all convictions, set aside all sentences imposed by the High Court, and acquitted and discharged Sedina Tamakloe. The Court considered it unnecessary to determine whether the ten-year sentence was excessive because the convictions themselves had already been nullified.
Reaction from the NDC and NPP
The decision attracted strong reactions from members of the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) and governing National Democratic Congress (NDC). Several NDC party figures welcomed the judgment, arguing that it vindicated their longstanding position that the prosecution had been politically motivated and legally flawed.
Head of NDC Legal, Godwin Edudzi Tamakloe, maintained that the Court of Appeal had reaffirmed the importance of fair trial guarantees, proper criminal procedure, and the constitutional presumption of innocence.
“The former Attorney-General Godfred Dame did shoddy work on this issue. You cannot sacrifice the freedom of an individual based on political expediency,” he told TV3.
The opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) believes the decision of the second apex court is part of a plan to free former NDC officials from accountability.
“Ladies and gentlemen, let me proceed by stating that it has become the modus operandi of this Attorney General. It was an agenda well-conceived to free all their people,” NPP’s National Organiser, Henry Nana Boakye, said on July 31, 2026, at a press conference.
He referenced the number of high-profile cases that the current Attorney-General, Dominic Ayine, has discontinued, which he claimed was well-rehearsed, leading to Sedina’s freedom.
“So we are not surprised that from day one, they had already conceived that we are going to free Madam Sedina Tamakloe,” Henry added.
The Attorney-General’s Decision
Meanwhile, the Attorney-General has announced that the Republic would appeal to the Supreme Court. He filed a motion for a stay of the Court of Appeal decision, but it has not been determined as of the date of publication of the report.
The decision to appeal means that the Court of Appeal’s judgment is unlikely to be the final chapter in the litigation. The Attorney-General is expected to invite the Supreme Court to examine whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted the law relating to criminal charges, the burden of proof, the admissibility of evidence, and the offences for which the former MASLOC CEO was prosecuted.
Conclusion
With the Attorney-General’s decision to appeal to the Supreme Court, the legal questions arising from this case remain unsettled. The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling is expected to shape Ghana’s criminal jurisprudence on fair trial rights, prosecutorial standards, and the prosecution of financial crimes for years to come.
