For three years, Sedina Tamakloe Attionu was the face of fugitive justice in Ghana. A former Chief Executive Officer of the Microfinance and Small Loans Centre (MASLOC), facing 79 charges, who took her passport for a medical review and never returned.
On 16th April 2024, Justice Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe, sitting as a High Court judge, convicted her in absentia on all counts and sentenced her to 10 years in prison. The message was clear: You can run, but the law will jail you anyway.
On 30th July 2026, that message was quashed.
A three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, presided over by Justice Emmanuel Ankamah with Justices S. Obeng-Diawuo and E. S. Amedahe concurring, in a 94-page judgment, allowed her appeal, set aside all convictions and sentences, and acquitted and discharged her.
And then the Court added a line that every Ghanaian should read twice:
“Acquittal does not necessarily mean that every transaction was proper.”
That single sentence is the heart of this case. It is the difference between legal guilt and public accountability. And it explains why Ghana keeps losing corruption cases it thinks it has won.
79 CHARGES, 10 YEARS, AND A VANISHED CEO
Sedina Tamakloe Attionu, together with former Operations Manager Daniel Axim, was prosecuted over the running of MASLOC between 2013 and 2016.
The prosecution’s case was damning on paper:
That Obaatanpa Microfinance returned GH¢500,000 cash to her directly and she kept it; that GH¢1,816,000 released for nationwide sensitisation, monitoring and training never resulted in any real sensitisation; that GH¢579,800 meant for victims of the Kantamanto market fire was diverted; that she committed government to GH¢61.7 million for 350 vehicles without Public Procurement Authority approval at inflated prices despite tax waivers; that MASLOC bought 200 mobile phones for GH¢93,412 that were worth GH¢24,400 on the open market; and that improper ex gratia was paid to herself.
The prosecution called seven witnesses. She attended most of the trial. On 30th July 2021, she got her passport to travel for medical review, on condition she returns on 10th October 2021. She didn’t.
On 18th January 2022, the High Court declared her a fugitive. On 24th January 2023, her sureties’ bonds were forfeited. The trial continued without her.
Conviction in absentia followed.
WHY THE COURT OF APPEAL SAID NO
The Court of Appeal did not say MASLOC was well run. It said the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial judge made a fundamental error.
That error was burden of proof.
Many of the charges alleged that Tamakloe acted “without authority,” “without approval,” or “without due process.” The trial judge reasoned that because the prosecution said she had no authority, she had to prove she did.
The Court of Appeal said that is wrong and dangerous.
“A prosecutor cannot shift the burden of proof merely by framing an allegation negatively,” the judgment held. It is for the prosecution to prove she had no authority. It is not for the accused to prove she did. An accused person’s decision to jump bail, to not testify, to offer no explanation, cannot be used to fill gaps in the prosecution’s evidence.
On that principle, the individual charges collapsed:
The GH¢500,000 Obaatanpa refund: The original acknowledgement letter she allegedly signed was never produced. Only a photocopy obtained from Obaatanpa was tendered. No MASLOC file copy was produced, even though the reference number suggested MASLOC should have one. The WhatsApp messages the Obaatanpa chairman claimed he exchanged with her about the refund were never produced. And after she allegedly pocketed the cash, she continued writing letters demanding interest on the same GH¢500,000. The Court found that conduct “difficult to reconcile” with receipt.
The sensitisation funds: The prosecution alleged programmes did not happen or happened on a very limited scale, but did not call a single regional officer or beneficiary from across the country to say they never came. The Court said the trial judge wrongly expected Tamakloe to prove proper use.
The Kantamanto fire funds: Here, the case died by its own witness. A prosecution witness admitted under cross-examination that enquiries established the GH¢579,800 was distributed to victims. Another officer had confirmed this, but it was omitted from the report tendered in court. That admission struck at the foundation of the stealing charge.
The money laundering: Once stealing was not proved, the money could not be called proceeds of crime. The foundation disappeared.
The ex gratia and vehicle charges: The Head of Finance testified he processed payments based on appointment letters from the Office of the President and found nothing wrong. No evidence Tamakloe deceived him. For the vehicles, the Ministry of Finance had written to PPA confirming financing was under consideration, and she never even paid for the 350 vehicles – her successor renegotiated and paid in 2017 and 2018 after she left office.
THE LESSON GHANA KEEPS MISSING
This judgment is not a political victory. It is a prosecutorial post-mortem.
Ghana has mastered the art of announcing big corruption cases with huge numbers – 79 charges, GH¢61 million, 10-year jail term – but has not mastered the boring, unglamorous work of proving them: keeping original documents, tendering the actual phone, calling the teacher in Bawku who never received training, auditing the Kantamanto list before charging.
When we charge stealing, we must prove dishonest appropriation, not just administrative lapses. When we allege absence of approval, we must prove we looked for it and it was not there, not ask the accused to prove it was.
The Court of Appeal’s warning should hang on the wall of every investigative body: “Criminal suspicion, unanswered questions, administrative failures and even financial irregularities are not substitutes for proof of every ingredient of a criminal offence.”
Sedina Tamakloe Attionu is now a free woman after extradition from the US and two months in Nsawam. Legally, she owes nothing.
But the judgment leaves every Ghanaian with an uncomfortable question that no court can answer: If acquittal does not mean everything was proper, who accounts for what was improper?
Until we answer that with better audits, surcharges, and prosecutions that are built on evidence first and headlines second, we will continue to jail people in absentia and free them on appeal – and call it justice.
Alexander Afriyie, supervising editor, ghanacrimereport.com and ghanatalk.com