Samson Anyenini, a Broadcast journalist and private legal practitioner, has provided a detailed breakdown of the Court of Appeal 94 pages judgment on the former MASLOC CEO Sedina Tamakloe-Attionu in a 9-page article.
He argued that the Court of Appeal’s decision did not amount to a declaration that the allegations against Sedina were false but rather explained that the court found that the prosecution failed to present evidence capable of meeting the constitutional standard for conviction.
In his write-up, he argued that the acquittal and discharge of Sedina Tamakloe-Attionu by the Court of Appeal reinforces fundamental principles of criminal justice.
In a Facebook post on August 3, 2026, Samson Anyenini broke down the judgment in a long write-up, saying, “Pray – The Law 101: Burden of Proof, Defective Charges, and Constitutional Safeguards.
Sedina Christine Tamakloe Attionu v. The Republic (Suit No: H2/17/2026)
Introduction – from scandal to vindication
For years, the name Sedina Christine Tamakloe Attionu has been synonymous with one of Ghana’s most sensational corruption trials. As CEO of the Microfinance and Small Loans Centre (MASLOC), she was accused of siphoning millions meant for traders, farmers, and fire victims. The state painted a damning portrait: cash handovers at petrol stations, phantom training programs, inflated contracts for buses and mobile phones, and unapproved payouts at the twilight of her tenure.
The allegations were staggering. Investigators claimed that between 2013 and 2017, MASLOC lost more than 25 million Ghana Cedis directly, while the state was shackled with unauthorized procurement obligations exceeding 61 million. In 2024, the High Court convicted Sedina in absentia, sentencing her to ten years in prison, and handed her operations manager, Daniel Axim, five years with hard labour.
But the story did not end there.
On appeal, the narrative shifted dramatically. The Court of Appeal scrutinized the evidence and found that the prosecution’s case, though dramatic in its presentation, was riddled with gaps. 34 of the 78 charges, it ruled, were incurably defective, and others had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The alleged fiscal anomalies; cash withdrawals, procurement contracts, relief fund diversions were not supported by the kind of airtight proof required to sustain criminal convictions.
In a stunning reversal, the court on Thursday 30th July 2026 quashed both the convictions and the sentences. What had once been heralded as a landmark anti-corruption victory was now recast as a miscarriage of justice. Sedina, once branded a fugitive and fraudster, emerged legally vindicated. Daniel Axim, recently released on bail pending determination of his appeal, must be relishing a similar verdict by the panel that will hear his case because this judgment has cleared his record as a conspirator.
The MASLOC case thus stands as a paradox in Ghana’s judicial history: a saga that began with sensational allegations of betrayal and ended with the courts affirming the principle that suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute for proof.
Sedina and Daniel in the High Court
Let’s begin by briefly tracing how between 2014 and 2017, MASLOC became the subject of a far-reaching investigation. By the State’s case as recorded in the judgment delivered on 16th of April 2024, the suspicion began in August 2014 when Obaatanpa, Ejura-based Microfinance company, returned a loan facility of GH¢500,000. Sedina declined a cheque, demanded cash which was grudgingly delivered in a ‘Ghana Must Go’ bag to her the Baatsonaa Total filling station at night by the Board Chairman of Obaatanpa.
In June 2014, MASLOC made GH¢ 150,000 investment in Obaatanpan and followed it with an ADB cheque for the GH¢500,000 payment on the 24th of July 2014. But Sedina demand a refund when the company declined her demand for 24% interest.
Auditors uncovered further anomalies spanning 2013 – 2016. Over GH¢1.8 million withdrawn for nationwide sensitization programs was largely unaccounted for. The funds were meant for financial literacy training for some 85,000 beneficiaries. But “only GH¢1,300 was spent on refreshment for some beneficiaries in the Volta, Greater Accra and Brong-Ahafo Regions only and that no programme whatsoever took place in the other seven regions.” Presidential relief funds of nearly GH¢1.5 million for victims of a devastating Kantamanto market fire in 2013 were similarly compromised, with more than GH¢570,000 diverted. The disbursement was to be done by savings and loans company – Dwadifo Adanfo.
In late 2016, procurement practices came under scrutiny. MASLOC entered single-sourced contracts for vehicles and mobile phones without approval from the Public Procurement Authority. Prices were grossly inflated: Chevrolet Aveo cars billed at GH¢75,000 instead of GH¢47,000; Isuzu buses at GH¢440,000, exceeding market value by over GH¢150,000 per unit; and Samsung phones priced at GH¢93,000 against a retail value of GH¢24,000. These contracts produced direct losses of more than GH¢22 million and bound the state to unauthorized obligations exceeding GH¢61 million.
Finally, in January 2017, Sedina authorized GH¢270,000 in unapproved ex-gratia and leave-in-lieu payments to herself and her deputy.
Taken together, the impugned conduct occasioned direct losses of over GH¢25 million, alongside unauthorized procurement commitments of GH¢61 million.
The charges were filed on 30th January 2019. They both pleaded not guilty to all charges, and she attended court but on 30th July 2021, just before the courts commenced their legal vacation, she pleaded for the release of her passport – then held by the court as part of her bail conditions. The presiding judge, Justice Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe, graciously granted her request, permitting her to travel to the United States for medical treatment, with instructions to return on 10th October 2021 to open her case. She did not return, and after extended indulgences, notices, and forfeitures imposed on her sureties, the court formally ordered, on 24th February 2023, her trial to proceed in absentia pursuant to Article 19(3) of the 1992 Constitution. Axim, by contrast, remained present throughout.
The prosecution had called 7 witnesses, and she watched her lawyer cross examine them. On 16th April 2024, the court delivered judgment. The testimony began with PW1, Dr. Stephen Amoah (then-incoming CEO of MASLOC), who detailed the initial administrative handover, audit red flags, and the subsequent referral of financial irregularities to law enforcement. He was complemented by PW5, Francis Bandoh (Head of Finance at MASLOC), who explained the internal financial mechanics, memo approvals, disbursement procedures, and irregular payouts involving vehicle procurements among others.
To substantiate specific transactions involving Obaatanpa, the prosecution called two of its non-executive board members: PW3, Seth Obugyei Asiedu (Board Chairman) and PW2, Samuel Quanah (a director who is an accountant by profession, though not employed as Obaatanpa’s accountant). Together, they recounted the rejection of their formal refund cheque, the demand for physical cash, and the direct handover of the money at a filling station. However, their testimony revealed that the funds were actually mobilized by officers in Ejura, none of whom were called to testify, nor even interviewed by EOCO, leaving no corporate officer of Obaatanpa to verify the operational source of the cash. Providing corroborating logistical context for the physical movement of the funds and transit during key meetings was PW4, Samuel Neequaye (Sedina’s personal driver)
Finally, the expert and investigative legs of the prosecution were anchored by PW6, Philip Baffour-Awuah (Managing Partner at Baffour Awuah and Associates), who presented findings from the independent forensic audit into inflated procurement costs and unrecorded cash disbursements, and PW7, Kodua Basoa Panyin Twum (EOCO Investigator), who detailed the overarching criminal investigation, key witness statements, and trial exhibits.
Sedina was convicted on multiple counts. She was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment on the principal charge of stealing. In addition, she received 3 years’ imprisonment and a fine of GH¢36,000 for conspiracy to cause financial loss, 2 years’ imprisonment and a fine of GH¢60,000 for the substantive financial loss counts, 3 years’ imprisonment and a fine of GH¢24,000 for money laundering, 6 months’ imprisonment on each count for causing loss to public property and unauthorized procurement commitments, and 2 years’ imprisonment with a fine of GH¢12,000 for improper payment of public funds. All custodial terms were ordered to run concurrently, fixing her effective sentence at 10 years’ imprisonment, with total fines amounting to GH¢132,000.
Daniel was likewise convicted. He was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment with hard labour for stealing and conspiracy to steal. He also received 12 months’ imprisonment and a fine of GH¢12,000 for conspiracy to cause financial loss, and 2 years’ imprisonment with a fine of GH¢12,000 for money laundering. His custodial terms were ordered to run concurrently, giving him an effective sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment, with total fines of GH¢24,000.
The court further directed restitution of the misappropriated public funds, though it does not appear that the state took steps to enforce recovery.
Why Court of Appeal overturned the judgment
The judgment of the Court of Appeal drew immediate anger nationwide. But many who rushed to reject it as an orchestration by the NDC government, began to applaud it. Beyond the political interest and procedural drama surrounding the case, the appellate court’s decision offers a re-examination of core criminal law tenets. It serves as a vital reminder that regardless of the gravity of alleged financial improprieties, the constitutional protections afforded to an accused person remain sacrosanct. From the absolute nature of the right against self-incrimination to the fatal nature of defective charge sheets, the decision reinforces the enduring principle that the State’s duty to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt can never be compromised or short-circuited.
From High Court to appellate intervention
Sedina faced all 78-counts while Daniel answered 24 of those charges. The charges spanned a wide array of economic offenses, including stealing, money laundering, and willfully causing financial loss to the State.
Extradition proceedings commenced soon after the judgment to track, arrest the fugitive from justice and bring her to Ghana to serve her sentence. Undeterred by her physical custody, her legal team pressed forward with an appeal filed on 9th May 2024. The Attorney-General complains that the appeal was not brought to his attention until something in February 2026 when the made an order directed at his office to file arguments. On 30th July 2026, the Court of Appeal issued a decisive, unanimous judgment that set aside the trial court’s convictions, quashed her 10-year sentence, and acquitted and discharged her on all counts. In response, the Attorney-General immediately lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court alongside an application for a stay of execution. As the legal vacation approached, the Court of Appeal adjourned sine die pending formal administrative directions from the Chief Justice regarding the hearing of the stay application.
Fugitive’s appeal ought not be entertained
As the threshold issue before the court, the Court of Appeal first addressed and resolved the AG’s (Respondent) preliminary objection to the appeal.
The Court’s core holding centered on the fundamental principle that the right of appeal in Ghana is strictly a creature of statute and the Constitution. Grounded directly in Article 137 of the 1992 Constitution and Section 11 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), this right exists as of right for an aggrieved party once the enabling provisions are invoked.
Because Sedina fully satisfied all statutory conditions precedent, most notably filing her Notice of Appeal within the prescribed time limits and fulfilling the procedural or administrative requirements under the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 (C.I. 19), her right to access the court’s appellate jurisdiction became fully vested. The Court emphasized that neither the Constitution nor any act of Parliament contains a provision stripping a person convicted in absentia or designated as a fugitive of their constitutional right to appeal, provided the conditions attendant to appeal are met. Consequently, having established that the appeal was properly brought as of right and in full compliance with the rules, the Court dismissed the preliminary objection for lack of merit.
Re-anchoring the ‘constitutional’ standard of proof
At the heart of the Court of Appeal’s intervention was a fundamental correction of how the standard of proof must be evaluated in criminal trials. Presiding over the panel, Justice Emmanuel Ankamah, J.A., grounded the Court’s opinion in the foundational standard articulated by Akamba JSC in Ekow Russell v. The Republic:
“The strength of our criminal justice system over the years has not thrived on mere wishes and speculation but by the production of evidence that meets the standard of proof of crime in a court of justice.”
The appellate court observed that the trial judge had committed a grave misdirection by effectively shifting the evidentiary burden onto the accused. In evaluating the disputed transaction involving the GHS 500,000, the trial judge had asserted that Sedina had a “case to answer” specifically to “throw light on whether or not the signature” on a photocopied acknowledgment receipt is hers and any explanation of whether or not she indeed received the money.
The Court of Appeal rejected this reasoning, clarifying that forcing an accused person to dispel suspicion or explain disputed signatures undermines the constitutional presumption of innocence. Referencing the precedent established in Ato Forson v. The Republic, the Court highlighted the unyielding scope of Article 19(10) of the 1992 Constitution:
“Article 19(10) of the Constitution states that ‘no person who is charged with an offence shall be compelled to give evidence at the trial.’ This constitutional guarantee is expressed in terms admitting of no qualification… From arrest until conviction, the choice whether to give evidence remains exclusively hers. She may not be compelled to answer the charge by her own testimony, still less to furnish material capable of advancing the Prosecution’s case.”
An accused person’s choice to remain silent, or her physical absence during a trial in absentia, does not lessen the prosecution’s burden to establish every element of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Silence cannot be interpreted as a gap-filler for an incomplete prosecution case.
Evidentiary infirmities and the hearsay trap
A substantial portion of the judgment focuses on the prosecution’s reliance on flawed and uncorroborated evidence to substantiate complex financial crimes. The Court of Appeal systematically dissected several key aspects of the State’s case, revealing critical evidentiary gaps:
The alleged Obaatanpa refund
The prosecution alleged that Sedina dishonestly appropriated a GHS 500,000 cash refund returned by Obaatanpa. To support this, the prosecution relied on the oral testimony of PW3, who claimed he sent WhatsApp messages to the Sedina reminding her of the cash payment and receipt. However, the State failed to produce the WhatsApp chat logs, phone records, or any electronic evidence to substantiate the claim. Furthermore, the State relied on an unauthenticated acknowledgment letter (Exhibit A) that failed to satisfy the mandatory certification standards for secondary documentary evidence under Section 175 of the Evidence Act (NRCD 323). Most damningly, official demand letters (Exhibits C and D) issued by MASLOC in 2015 directly contradicted the claim that a cash refund had already been received, creating reasonable doubt that the appellate court resolved in favour of Sedina.
Sensitization and monitoring funds
Regarding the alleged misappropriation of GH¢1.816 million intended for nationwide sensitization and monitoring programs, the State’s case relied heavily on an investigative summary prepared by EOCO (PW7). During cross-examination, the lead investigator admitted that investigators had not contacted or interviewed a single individual out of the 85,300 listed beneficiaries. Moreover, the prosecution failed to call any of the MASLOC Regional Directors, the officers who actually disbursed the funds, to give sworn testimony in court. The Court of Appeal ruled that relying on investigative reports detailing what non-testifying regional officers allegedly said constituted inadmissible hearsay under Section 60(1) of NRCD 323, leaving the charges without direct or admissible supporting evidence.
Defective particulars of offence
A total of 34 charges comprising 20 counts of Willfully Causing Financial Loss, 11 counts of Conspiracy, and 3 counts of Causing Loss to Public Property were declared incurably defective. The Court rejected the AG’s argument that supplying further particulars during trial cured the defect, holding instead that the failure to state essential statutory ingredients was a fundamental flaw that nullified the counts. The Court noted that the particulars of the offence failed to disclose the specific physical acts, omissions, or statutory duties that she purportedly breached. Reaffirming the principle established in Republic v. Ernest Thompson, the Court held that a charge sheet must clearly articulate the exact factual basis of the wrongfulness. Depriving an accused of these details violates Article 19(2)(d) of the Constitution. Such structural defects strip the charges of legal substance and cannot be cured by general procedural provisions such as Section 406 of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act (Act 30).
Ex-Gratia and leave-in-lieu payments
The court found that the prosecution’s case was legally unsupportable and the trial court’s evaluation was deeply flawed because Sedina did not make the payments.
The record revealed that the ex-gratia and leave-in-lieu payments made to Sedina and her Deputy were fully backed by internal administrative documentation, including approval memos from the Human Resource department and explicit authorization from the Board Chairman. Crucially, the prosecution’s own witness, the Head of Finance (PW5) who actively processed the payments, testified under oath that he vetted the documentation, processed the disbursements according to established administrative workflow, and found no wrongdoing or irregularity.
“There was no evidence that she authorised an improper payment, still less that she procured it by deception, misrepresentation, or the presentation of false documentation to the Head of Finance.”
Procurement without approval and inflated vehicle prices
The Court held that the evidence demonstrated that not a single cedi was paid by MASLOC for the 350 vehicles during Sedina’s tenure as CEO; rather, it was her successor who subsequently renegotiated the contract terms and authorized payments in 2017 and 2018. Furthermore, the record showed that the Ministry of Finance had engaged the Public Procurement Authority regarding financing, completely undermining the claim of an illegal transaction.
The prosecution failed to identify any specific statutory provisions breached, relied on unsubstantiated negative assertions that Sedina acted “without authority,” and produced no proof that she personally authorized unlawful disbursements.
The primary error committed by the trial judge was a fundamental reversal of the burden of proof. The High Court improperly held that because the State alleged a lack of authority, the burden shifted to Sedina to prove she had approval. The Court of Appeal emphasized that a negative allegation does not relieve the prosecution of its duty to prove every element of an offense, nor can an accused person’s silence in a trial in absentia be used to plug fatal gaps in the State’s case.
The court’s conclusion
The Court reaffirmed the most fundamental principle of criminal justice: the burden of proof rests squarely on the prosecution and never shifts to the accused unless a statute expressly says so. Drawing on the enduring authority of Woolmington v. DPP, the court emphasized that this is not a mere technicality but the constitutional embodiment of the presumption of innocence.
The trial judge, however, had inverted this principle. Faced with charges drafted largely in negative terms, alleging that the appellant acted “without authorization” or “without due process”, the judge reasoned that it was for the accused to prove the positive. The appellate court rejected this approach, stressing that the way a prosecutor frames a charge cannot relocate the burden of proof. A negative averment remains an element of the offence, and the difficulty of proving it is the prosecution’s burden to bear, not the accused’s.
The court went further: unless a statute plainly imposes a burden on the accused, she is under no obligation to supply evidence to shore up a prosecution case that has not reached the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt. To require otherwise is to ask the accused to complete the prosecution’s unfinished work.
On a fair reading, the prosecution’s evidence fell short of that standard. The trial judge’s misdirection on this fundamental point struck at the root of a fair trial. For that reason, the Court of Appeal held that the convictions and sentences on all counts could not stand. The appeal was allowed, and the convictions and sentences were set aside in their entirety.
Lessons for the legal system
The Court of Appeal’s judgment provides several enduring principles for trial courts, prosecutors, and defense counsel alike:
• Charges must be legally sound: A charge sheet must do more than cite a statutory provision; it must state the specific actions or failures of duty that constitute the crime. Vague or incomplete charges are incurably defective and void ab initio.
• The right to silence remains paramount: The burden of proof never shifts to the defence. An accused person is under no legal obligation to explain suspicious circumstances, clarify disputed signatures, or fill gaps in the prosecution’s evidence.
• Strict adherence to documentary and digital evidence: Allegations involving digital communications, such as text messages or WhatsApp chats, require formal production and authentication under the Evidence Act. Unsubstantiated oral assertions carry no probative weight in a court of law.
• Investigative summaries cannot replace sworn testimony: An investigative report containing out-of-court statements from uncalled witnesses remains hearsay. To prove financial misappropriation, the State must present direct, admissible evidence from key witnesses subject to cross-examination.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeal’s decision reaffirms that the integrity of a judicial system is measured by its commitment to procedural fairness. Even in high-profile public interest prosecutions, convictions cannot rest on speculation, defective charges, or inadmissible hearsay. The law demands rigorous proof beyond reasonable doubt – a standard that remains the essential safeguard of individual liberty.
The 94-page judgment in 9 pages article and missing nothing”.
See the post below:
