Full Judgment: Why Court of Appeal acquitted and discharged Sedina Tamakloe
The Court of Appeal has overturned the conviction of former Microfinance and Small Loans Centre (MASLOC) Chief Executive Officer Sedina Christine Tamakloe Attionu, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court committed several legal and evidential errors.
In a unanimous 94-page judgment delivered on Thursday, July 30, a three-member panel comprising Justices Emmanuel Ankamah, Emmanuel Senyo Amedahe and Samuel Obeng-Diawuo held that key aspects of the prosecution’s case did not meet the required legal standard and that several convictions could not be upheld.
The appellate court consequently quashed all of Tamakloe’s convictions, set aside the 10-year prison sentence imposed by the High Court, and acquitted and discharged her on all charges.
One of the preliminary issues addressed by the court was the Attorney-General’s argument that Tamakloe, who had been tried and convicted in absentia after leaving the country, was not entitled to appeal.
The judges dismissed that objection, ruling that the 1992 Constitution does not bar a person convicted in absentia from appealing. They found that Tamakloe had complied with the Court of Appeal Rules and was therefore entitled to have her appeal heard.
The court also criticised the trial judge for departing from the constitutional principle that every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
According to the judgment, the High Court repeatedly placed the burden on Tamakloe to explain or disprove allegations before the prosecution had established a prima facie case.
On the charge involving the alleged theft of GH¢500,000 linked to Obaatanpa Microfinance, the Court of Appeal ruled that the prosecution failed to authenticate a key acknowledgement letter relied upon as evidence.
The judges held that after Tamakloe denied signing the document, it became the prosecution’s responsibility to prove the signature was genuine. Instead, the trial court wrongly expected her to prove that the signature was not hers, contrary to the Evidence Act and constitutional protections against self-incrimination.
The court stressed that Article 19(10) of the Constitution protects an accused person from being compelled to testify or assist the prosecution in proving its case, describing the privilege against self-incrimination as a fundamental constitutional right.
The appellate court also identified major weaknesses in the prosecution’s case regarding the alleged misappropriation of funds allocated for MASLOC sensitisation programmes.
It noted that although investigators claimed the programmes were never conducted, the prosecution failed to call the MASLOC Regional Directors—whose information formed the basis of those claims—to testify.
Instead, investigators gave evidence based on statements made by the regional directors, which the court ruled was hearsay because the individuals concerned were neither called as witnesses nor subjected to cross-examination, as required under the Evidence Act.
The judges further observed that the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) admitted it had not independently confirmed whether the sensitisation programmes had taken place or interviewed the alleged beneficiaries.
With respect to funds earmarked for victims of the Kantamanto Market fire, the Court of Appeal again found that the trial court had improperly shifted the burden of proof to the accused.
The judges ruled that the prosecution should first have established, through documentary evidence or witness testimony, the approved procedure for distributing the funds before requiring Tamakloe to account for them.
The court also noted that one of the prosecution’s own witnesses admitted under cross-examination that investigations had shown the funds were ultimately used for their intended purpose.
The appellate court further held that several counts of wilfully causing financial loss to the state were legally defective because the charge sheets failed to specify the alleged wilful conduct constituting the offence.
According to the judgment, those defects could not be remedied by evidence presented during the trial.
On the money laundering charges, the court ruled that since the prosecution failed to establish the underlying offences of stealing and conspiracy to steal, the money laundering convictions had no legal basis and had to be set aside.
The judges also found insufficient evidence to support convictions relating to the improper payment of public funds, noting that prosecution witnesses testified that the disputed payments were processed through the appropriate procedures and that no irregularities had been identified at the time.
Tamakloe was convicted by the High Court in April 2024 after facing 78 charges, including stealing, conspiracy to steal, wilfully causing financial loss to the state, causing loss to public property, improper payment of public funds, unauthorised commitments, money laundering and breaches of the Public Procurement Act.
The Court of Appeal’s decision brings those convictions to an end, with the judges concluding that the prosecution failed to meet the constitutional requirement of proving the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.
About The Author
