Former Deputy Attorney-General Alfred Tuah-Yeboah’s claim that prosecutors who secured the conviction of former MASLOC CEO Sedina Tamakloe-Attionu “did their job well” and that it was the Court of Appeal that “failed” does not survive a reading of the appeal itself.
The Court of Appeal on July 30, 2026, by a majority decision, acquitted and discharged her, overturning the 10-year hard labour sentence handed down by Justice Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe on April 16, 2024. The court did not do so out of sympathy. It did so because the prosecution’s case was riddled with incurable legal defects.
Here are the legal holes the Court of Appeal identified:
1. Fundamentally Defective Charge Sheet – Violation of Article 19(2)(d)
This was the killer blow. Under Article 19(2)(d) of the 1992 Constitution, an accused person must be given sufficient particulars of the offence. The defence, led by Enoch Deegbe, argued that out of the 78 counts of stealing, conspiracy to steal, causing financial loss, money laundering and procurement breaches, many charges merely stated that funds were “dishonestly appropriated” or “financial loss was caused” without stating HOW, WHEN, and by WHAT ACT.
You cannot charge someone with stealing GH¢500,000 without stating how she stole it, what false representation she made, and when. The Court of Appeal agreed that this violated fair trial rights and cited Supreme Court authorities like _Osei v Republic_.
2. Failure To Prove Ingredients of Key Offences
For offences like *Conspiracy to Steal and Willfully Causing Financial Loss to the State, the prosecution must prove agreement to commit crime and willful, intentional conduct. The Appeal Court found that the prosecution proved that money got missing or was misapplied at MASLOC between 2013-2016, but failed to directly link that loss to the personal criminal intent of Tamakloe-Attionu.
For example, the GH¢500,000 withdrawal for Obaatampa Savings and Loans was shown to have been refunded, but not properly accounted for by MASLOC accounts officers – not necessarily stolen by her. The GH¢1.7m sensitization fund and GH¢1.4m Kantamanso fire relief fund suffered from poor accounting linkage.
3. Audit Reports Not Properly Tendered
Most of the financial loss evidence was based on audit reports. But the auditors who prepared the reports were not called to tender them through proper evidentiary procedure under the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323). Documents were dumped on the court without their makers being cross-examined. The Court of Appeal held that this was hearsay and could not sustain a criminal conviction.
4. Trial In Absentia – Section 170 of Act 30 Problem
Sedina left Ghana in 2021 with court permission for medical treatment and never returned. She was tried in absentia under Article 19(3)(a) of the Constitution and Section 170 of Act 30. While the High Court said she “disabled herself” from attending trial, the defence argued and the Court of Appeal scrutinized whether Section 170(5), which bars trial in absentia for felonies unless a warrant is issued first, was strictly complied with. This procedural irregularity raised a constitutional question about effective right to defence.
5. Failure To Prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt
In the end, the prosecution called only six witnesses for a GH¢90 million loss case spanning four years. No forensic chain of custody for vehicles and Samsung phones allegedly bought at inflated prices. No direct evidence that she personally pocketed money.
The Court of Appeal held that suspicion, however strong, is not proof. Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court Did Not Fail, It Protected The Law
To say prosecutors did their job well when their charge sheet was defective, their audit reports were hearsay, and their ingredients were not proved is inaccurate. Securing a conviction at the High Court is not the test. Securing a conviction that survives appeal is.
The Court of Appeal did exactly what it was created to do – ensure that no Ghanaian, no matter how unpopular, is jailed on a defective charge sheet.
If the state believes the Appeal Court erred, the remedy is an appeal to the Supreme Court, not an attack on the judges.
Alexander Afriyie, supervising editor, ghanacrimereport.com and ghanatalk.com