A three-member panel of the Court of Appeal has unanimously acquitted and discharged former MASLOC CEO Sedina Tamakloe Attionu, quashing all her convictions and setting aside her 10-year jail term.
The 94-page judgment was delivered on 30th July, 2026 by Justice Emmanuel Ankamah as Presiding, with Justices Samuel Obeng-Diawuo and Emmanuel Senyo Amedahe concurring, reversing the decision of Justice Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe who had on 16th April, 2024 convicted her in absentia in THE REPUBLIC v. SEDINA TAMAKLOE ATTIONU & ANOR [TLP-HC-2024-04].
Mad. Tamakloe had faced 79 charges 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.
She was extradited from the United States on 8th June, 2026 after jumping bail in 2021 when she was granted leave to travel for medical review. She had served less than two months of her sentence before today’s acquittal.
Her appeal filed on 9th May, 2024 contained nine grounds. The Court struck out grounds (b) to (h) because they merely said the trial judge “erred” without explaining the error. But it upheld ground (a) – that the convictions were unreasonable and unsupported by evidence.
THE TRANSACTIONS
The prosecution’s case was that:
– Obaatanpa Microfinance delivered a GH¢500,000 cash refund directly to her which she appropriated;
– She and Operations Manager Daniel Axim misappropriated GH¢1,816,000 released for sensitisation, monitoring, training and financial literacy, though Board approved GH¢1,706,000;
– She misappropriated GH¢579,800 meant for Kantamanto fire victims;
– She executed a GH¢61.7 million contract for 350 vehicles without PPA approval and at inflated prices even after tax waivers;
– MASLOC paid GH¢93,412 for 200 phones worth GH¢24,400;
– Improper ex gratia and leave payments were made to herself and deputy.
Seven prosecution witnesses were called.
WHAT THE COURT OF APPEAL SAID
1. Can a fugitive appeal?
The Republic argued she was a fugitive and should not be heard. The Court rejected it. Neither the Constitution nor any law bars a person convicted in absentia from appealing. She filed within time.
2. 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.
3. Central Error – Reversal of Burden
The Court held the High Court repeatedly reversed the burden of proof. The trial judge held that because the charges said she acted “without authority”, “without approval” or “without due process”, she had to prove she had authority.
The Court of Appeal said that is wrong. The prosecution must prove absence of authority. You cannot shift burden by drafting charge negatively. Failure to testify or jumping bail cannot be used to complete a deficient prosecution case.
4. GH¢500,000 Obaatanpa Refund
Original acknowledgement letter not produced, only a copy from Obaatanpa. No MASLOC copy found though reference number suggested one should exist. Chairman claimed WhatsApp messages with her but none produced. And after alleged receipt, she continued signing letters demanding interest on the GH¢500,000 – conduct inconsistent with having received cash. Not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
5. Sensitisation Funds
Prosecution said programmes did not happen or were limited. But prosecution failed to call regional officers or beneficiaries to prove it. Trial judge wrongly expected her to prove proper use.
6. Kantamanto Funds GH¢579,800
A prosecution witness admitted enquiries established funds were distributed to victims. Another witness confirmed it, but that was omitted from report tendered. That admission destroyed the stealing charge.
7. Money Laundering
Quashed. Stealing was the predicate offence. Once stealing not proved, money cannot be proceeds of crime.
8. Ex Gratia Payments
MASLOC Head of Finance testified his office processed payments based on appointment letters from Chief of Staff at Presidency. He found nothing wrong and authorised payment. No evidence she deceived Finance or presented false documents.
9. GH¢61.7m Vehicle Commitment and Procurement
Prosecution did not identify the verification procedure breached. Evidence showed Ministry of Finance wrote to PPA confirming financing under consideration. Moreover, she did not authorise payment for the 350 vehicles during her tenure. Her successor renegotiated and paid in 2017/2018 after she left office.
10. No Reduction, But Acquittal
The Court said once convictions quashed, there is no lawful sentence left to reduce. Complaint that sentence was harsh became moot.
CENTRAL LESSON
The Court held: Burden of proving guilt belongs to prosecution. It cannot be shifted because allegation is expressed negatively, information may be readily available to accused, accused does not testify, is tried in absentia, or offers no explanation.
As Justice Ankamah explained, requiring otherwise would mean asking an accused person to complete the prosecution’s unfinished work and then convicting her for declining the invitation.
The judgment clarified that acquittal does not necessarily mean every MASLOC transaction was proper, prudent or administratively defensible. It only means the specific criminal offences charged were not proved beyond reasonable doubt according to law.
The Attorney-General has already filed a 2-page statement indicating intention to appeal to the Supreme Court.