COURT OF APPEAL FREES SEDINA TAMAKLOE AFTER 79 CHARGES – SAYS SHE WAS JAILED IN ABSENTIA ON WEAK EVIDENCE
The Court of Appeal has freed former Chief Executive Officer of MASLOC, Sedinam Tamakloe Attionu, after serving less than two months in prison following her extradition from the United States.
A three-member panel unanimously allowed her appeal, quashed all her convictions and sentences, and acquitted and discharged her. The 94-page judgment was delivered by Justice Emmanuel Ankamah, with Justices S. Obeng-Diawuo and E. S. Amedahe concurring, on 30th July, 2026.
79 CHARGES AND JAILED IN ABSENTIA
Sedinam Tamakloe and former Operations Manager Daniel Axim were prosecuted over several MASLOC transactions. They faced 78 counts including stealing, conspiracy, wilfully causing financial loss to the State, causing loss to public property, money laundering, improper payment of public funds, unauthorised commitment and breach of the Public Procurement Act.
The prosecution alleged that Obaatanpa Microfinance delivered a GH¢500,000 cash refund directly to Sedinam which she appropriated, that she and Axim misappropriated money for sensitisation, monitoring, training and financial literacy programmes, that she diverted GH¢579,800 meant for Kantamanto fire victims, that she executed a GH¢61.7 million contract for 350 vehicles without PPA approval at inflated prices despite tax waivers, that MASLOC paid GH¢93,412 for 200 phones worth GH¢24,400, and that improper ex gratia payments were made to herself and her deputy.
Seven witnesses were called. Sedinam attended most of the trial but on 30th July 2021 she obtained release of her passport to travel abroad for medical review on condition she returns on 10th October 2021. She did not return.
On 18th January 2022, the High Court held she had absconded. Her sureties were ordered to produce her and their bonds were forfeited on 24th January 2023. The trial continued in her absence.
On 16th April 2024, Justice Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe convicted her on all counts and imposed concurrent sentences with an effective term of 10 years. On 9th May 2024 she appealed.
She was extradited from the US on 8th June 2026 and started serving her jail term at Nsawam before her appeal was heard.
WHAT THE COURT OF APPEAL SAID
The Court rejected the Republic’s preliminary objection that a fugitive cannot appeal. It held that neither the Constitution nor any Ghanaian authority deprives a person convicted in absentia of the right to appeal if filed within time.
The Court struck out seven of her nine grounds of appeal because they merely said the judge “erred” without explaining the error, but kept the main ground that convictions were unreasonable and unsupported by evidence.
On defective charges, the Court held several charges were manifestly defective because they did not provide sufficient particulars of what she allegedly did. An accused must be told with reasonable clarity what she allegedly did.
On the central error, the Court held the High Court repeatedly reversed the burden of proof. Because charges alleged she acted without authority, without approval or without due process, the trial judge required her to prove she had authority. The Court of Appeal said that was wrong. A prosecutor cannot shift burden by framing allegation negatively. Unless statute says otherwise, prosecution must prove absence of authority. Failure to testify or jumping bail cannot be used to fill gaps.
On the GH¢500,000 Obaatanpa refund, the original acknowledgement letter was not produced, only a copy from Obaatanpa, no MASLOC copy was produced though reference number suggested one should exist. WhatsApp messages claimed by Chairman were not produced. And she continued signing letters demanding interest on same GH¢500,000 after alleged receipt. Receipt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
On sensitisation and training funds of GH¢1,816,000, though Board approved GH¢1,706,000, prosecution claimed programmes did not happen but failed to call regional officers or beneficiaries to prove it, and instead expected her to prove proper use.
On Kantamanto funds GH¢579,800, a prosecution witness admitted enquiries established funds were distributed to victims. Another witness confirmed it but it was omitted from report tendered. That admission destroyed the stealing charge.
Money laundering convictions were set aside because stealing, which was the predicate offence, was not proved, so money could not be proceeds of crime.
On ex gratia and leave payments, MASLOC Head of Finance testified his office processed payments based on appointment documents from Chief of Staff at Presidency and found nothing wrong. No evidence she deceived Finance or presented false documents.
On GH¢61.7 million vehicle commitment, prosecution did not identify verification procedure breached. Evidence showed Ministry of Finance wrote to PPA confirming financing under consideration. On procurement, she did not authorise payment for 350 vehicles during her tenure; her successor renegotiated and paid in 2017 and 2018.
The Court said it did not merely reduce sentence. Once convictions were quashed, there was no lawful sentence left. Complaint about harshness became moot.
FINAL RESULT AND LESSON
All convictions and sentences were quashed. She was acquitted and discharged. The Court stressed acquittal does not mean every MASLOC transaction was proper or prudent, only that criminal offences charged were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Criminal suspicion, administrative failures and financial irregularities are not substitutes for proof.
The central lesson, as Justice Ankamah explained, is that burden of proving guilt belongs to prosecution. It cannot be shifted because allegation is expressed negatively, information is more readily available to accused, accused does not testify, is tried in absentia, or offers no explanation. Otherwise it would mean asking accused to complete prosecution’s unfinished work and then convicting her for declining.