If you wanted to teach law students in Ghana how not to prosecute a high-profile corruption case, you would not need a hypothetical. You have the MASLOC case.
Former MASLOC CEO Sedina Tamakloe Attionu faced 79 charges. She was jailed 10 years in absentia on 16th April 2024. On 30th July 2026, a three-member Court of Appeal panel led by Justice Emmanuel Ankamah quashed everything and acquitted and discharged her.
Read the 94-page judgment carefully and one thing becomes clear: The Court did not say MASLOC was prudently run. In fact, the Court was explicit:
“Acquittal does not necessarily mean that every transaction was proper.”
What the Court said was simpler and more damning: The prosecution failed to do its job.
Here is how a 10-year conviction collapsed on five basic prosecutorial failures.
1. THE GH¢500,000 THAT EXISTED ONLY AS A PHOTOCOPY
The star allegation was that Obaatanpa Microfinance refunded GH¢500,000 in cash directly to Sedina Tamakloe and she dishonestly appropriated it.
The only proof? A photocopy of an acknowledgement letter allegedly signed by her.
The original was never produced. No MASLOC file copy was produced, even though the letter carried a MASLOC reference number which meant MASLOC should have kept one. The MASLOC officials who testified admitted they had never seen an original to compare it with.
The Chairman of Obaatanpa also told the court he exchanged WhatsApp messages with her about the refund. Those WhatsApp messages were never tendered.
And worst of all, after she allegedly received the GH¢500,000 cash, she continued to sign official letters demanding interest from Obaatanpa on that same GH¢500,000 investment.
Any competent prosecutor would know: You cannot prove receipt of cash with a photocopy, an absent original, and conduct that contradicts receipt. Yet that is what was presented as proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court held receipt was not proved. If receipt was not proved, stealing could not be proved.
2. THE NATIONWIDE PROGRAMMES WITH NO NATIONWIDE WITNESSES
The prosecution alleged that GH¢1,816,000 released for nationwide sensitisation, monitoring, training and financial literacy programmes was stolen, even though the MASLOC Board approved GH¢1,706,000, and that the programmes either did not happen or happened only on a very limited scale.
How do you prove a nationwide programme did not happen? You call regional officers, district officers, beneficiaries. You put the teacher in Bolga, the trader in Ho, the farmer in Wa in the box to say “No one came.”
The prosecution called none of them. Not one regional officer. Not one beneficiary.
Instead, it expected the trial judge to accept that because the money was released and the accused jumped bail and did not explain how it was used, she must have stolen it.
The Court of Appeal called this what it was: a reversal of the burden of proof. It is not for the accused to prove proper use. It is for the prosecution to prove theft. If you claim programmes did not happen, prove it.
3. THE KANTAMANTO FUNDS THAT WERE DISTRIBUTED – BY THE PROSECUTION’S OWN ADMISSION
This is the most embarrassing.
The prosecution alleged Sedina Tamakloe dishonestly appropriated GH¢579,800 meant for victims of the Kantamanto market fire disaster.
Under cross-examination, a prosecution witness – a state investigator – admitted that his own enquiries established that the funds had been distributed to the victims. He said another witness had confirmed it to him, but that information was omitted from the report tendered in evidence.
In other words, the state’s own file contained exculpatory evidence that victims were paid, but the report put before the court omitted it, and the charge of stealing was still pursued.
Once that admission came, the Court said, it “struck at the foundation of the stealing charge.” If victims received money, where is the dishonest appropriation?
4. THE AUTHORITY THAT THE PROSECUTION ASKED THE ACCUSED TO PROVE
Several charges alleged Tamakloe acted “without authority,” “without approval,” or “without due process” – for the GH¢61.7 million commitment for 350 vehicles and other transactions.
The trial judge’s reasoning was: Since we allege she had no authority, she must prove she had authority.
The Court of Appeal said this was fundamentally wrong in law. Unless a statute expressly says so, a prosecutor cannot shift burden by framing allegation negatively. It remains the prosecution’s duty to prove absence of authority, approval or due process.
The evidence actually showed the Ministry of Finance had written to the Public Procurement Authority confirming financing for vehicles was under consideration. And she did not even pay for the vehicles – her successor renegotiated and paid in 2017 and 2018 after she left office.
It was not her job to prove she had authority. It was the prosecution’s job to prove she didn’t. It never did.
5. THE MONEY LAUNDERING BUILT ON NOTHING
Money laundering charges were piled on top of stealing charges. But money laundering needs a predicate offence – you must first prove the money is proceeds of crime.
Once the Court held stealing was not proved, the money could not be called proceeds of crime. The legal foundation disappeared. The charges collapsed like a house with no foundation.
THE VERDICT ON THE PROSECUTION
The Tamakloe case was not lost at the Court of Appeal. It was lost at the investigation stage, at the docketing stage, at the charge sheet drafting stage.
Charges were manifestly defective because they did not give sufficient particulars of what she did. That is not grammar. It is fair trial. An accused must know what she is answering.
Original documents were not preserved. Key witnesses were not called. Exculpatory findings were omitted from reports. WhatsApp evidence was spoken about but never produced.
And the entire case relied on a dangerous shortcut: She jumped bail, she did not testify, so she must be guilty. The Court reminded us: “An accused person’s failure to testify, return to the country or offer an explanation cannot be used to complete an otherwise deficient prosecution case.”
The High Court fell for that shortcut. The Court of Appeal did not.
The result is that after five years of trial, forfeiture of sureties, extradition from the US, and 10 years in absentia, the State has nothing to show.
The acquittal does not mean MASLOC was clean. It means the prosecution never proved it was dirty in the way the criminal law requires.
Until Ghana learns to investigate before it charges, to produce originals before it talks about photocopies, and to call witnesses before it calls press conferences, we will continue to lose 79-charge cases.
And the public will continue to believe – rightly or wrongly – that it is not poor prosecution, but political chess.
Alexander Afriyie, supervising editor, ghanacrimereport.com and ghanatalk.com