Why the Court of Appeal overturned Sedina Tamakloe-Attionu’s MASLOC conviction

Samson Lardy Anyenini, legal analyst and host of JoyNews’ Newsfile and The Law, says the Court of Appeal overturned former Microfinance and Small Loans Centre (MASLOC) Chief Executive Officer Sedina Christine Tamakloe-Attionu’s conviction because the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Anyenini said the appeal challenged both the substance of the High Court’s judgment and the validity of several charges brought against Tamakloe-Attionu.

The state had argued that any defects in the charges were technical and should not have been enough to invalidate the conviction. However, the Court of Appeal ruled that the problems were fundamental and had affected the fairness of the proceedings.

The judges also rejected the state’s argument that Tamakloe-Attionu should not have been allowed to appeal because she did not take part in the original trial.

She had left Ghana, was convicted in absentia and was later arrested in the United States before extradition proceedings were initiated. The state argued that she should first have returned to Ghana to face the legal process before challenging the conviction.

Anyenini said the Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that the right to appeal is guaranteed by the constitution. The judges made clear, he added, that a person’s conduct does not automatically remove their right to challenge a court judgment.

Charges found to be defective

The Court of Appeal found that 34 of the 78 charges against Tamakloe-Attionu did not contain enough detail to properly inform her of the allegations she had to answer.

Anyenini explained that criminal charges must set out the specific accusations clearly enough to allow an accused person to prepare a defence.

“The court’s position was that these were not mere technicalities,” Anyenini said.

The court concluded that the lack of particulars affected Tamakloe-Attionu’s ability to defend herself and struck out the 34 charges.

Doubts over GH¢500,000 payment

The appellate court also found significant gaps in the prosecution’s evidence concerning a GH¢500,000 payment to Obaatanpa Microfinance.

The prosecution relied on a receipt which it said showed that Tamakloe-Attionu had received the money. However, the court questioned the document’s authenticity because the original receipt was not produced.

No MASLOC official was called to give evidence confirming the receipt either.

Further doubts arose from correspondence between MASLOC and Obaatanpa. In those communications, the institution continued to demand interest on the money. According to Anyenini, the judges considered that correspondence evidence of uncertainty over whether Tamakloe-Attionu had actually taken and kept the funds.

Under criminal law, he said, any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused.

Prosecution criticised over witnesses

The Court of Appeal also criticised the prosecution for relying on reports and second-hand accounts without calling important witnesses.

In relation to the alleged GH¢1.8m financial literacy programme, the court noted that neither beneficiaries nor regional MASLOC officials were called to confirm that the programme had not taken place.

The same problem arose in the case involving funds intended to provide relief after the Kantamanto fire. The prosecution did not call the people responsible for distributing the money or the beneficiaries who were meant to receive it.

As a result, the court concluded that the allegations had not been established beyond reasonable doubt.

Vehicle procurement and payments

On the purchase of 350 vehicles, Anyenini said the Court of Appeal found that the prosecution had not demonstrated criminal wrongdoing by Tamakloe-Attionu.

The judges noted that the procurement process had been approved by the relevant institutions and that payment was eventually completed by a later administration. They questioned why the transaction had been allowed to proceed if it was unlawful.

The court also considered claims concerning end-of-tenure benefits and payments for leave. Anyenini said an MASLOC accountant had testified that the payments were approved after the relevant documents had been reviewed.

Summarising the decision, Anyenini said the key issue was the burden of proof. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had placed some responsibility on Tamakloe-Attionu to explain or disprove the allegations, even though the law required the prosecution to prove her guilt.

Her absence from the original trial did not remove the state’s duty to establish every element of the alleged offences.

The Court of Appeal therefore overturned the conviction and acquitted and discharged Sedina Tamakloe-Attionu, ending a case that had drawn national attention to accountability and public financial management at MASLOC.