Former CEO of MASLOC Sedinam Tamakloe has been sentenced to 10 years in prison with hard labour while former Chief Operating Officer of MASLOc, Daniel Axim has also been jailed for five years with hard labour.

They were both found guilty on 78 counts of causing financial loss to the state, stealing, conspiracy to steal, money laundering, and causing loss to public property in contravention of public procurement law.

The two have been on trial since 2019. The state called six witnesses in all while the first accused person Sedina Tamakloe was tried in absentia as she absconded after obtaining the permission of the court to seek a medical checkup outside the country. The second accused person, however, testified in person but did not call any witnesses.

The offences for which the accused persons have been found guilty border on the appropriation of monies meant for MASLOc activities between the period of 2013 and 2016.

In one of the instances, the convicts were found to have withdrawn GHc 500,000 as a loan for Obaatampa Savings and Loans company but demanded a refund of the amount when the financial institution refused to yield a 24% percentage on the matter.

Evidence presented by the state suggested that even though there was evidence of the said refund to the convicts same was not reflected in the accounts and books of the complainant institution MASLOc.

The duo were also found guilty of appropriating over 1.7 million Ghana cedis meant for a sensitization exercise. According to the facts of the case, MASLOc was expected to provide 20 Ghana cedis each for 85,300 beneficiaries amounting to the 1.7m cedis. However, only 1,300 cedis was spent for the intended purpose with the rest being misappropriated by the convicts.

Equally only 579,800 out of 1.4 million cedis was disbursed to the victims of an inferno at Kantamanso with the two accused persons appropriating the remainder.

The case also involved the purchase of some vehicles for MASLOc where monies disbursed for the said purchase were more than the market price of the vehicles at the time and a similar situation with the purchase of some Samsung phones.

The evidence suggested that the amounts were higher than the prevailing market price at the time even though they were bought in bulk.