After seven days, she can go home and walk free – NDC Amaliba opens up on Sedina Tamakloe’s release
Former Director of Legal Affairs of the governing National Democratic Congress (NDC), Abraham Amaliba, has described the release of former MASLOC Chief Executive Officer Sedina Tamakloe-Attionu as the expected legal outcome following her acquittal and discharge by the Court of Appeal.
Mr Amaliba said there was little reason to be surprised by Ms Tamakloe-Attionu’s release because the appellate court’s decision had already cleared the legal path for her to regain her freedom.
His comments come after the Attorney-General withdrew an application seeking to stay the execution of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, allowing Ms Tamakloe-Attionu to leave custody about two weeks after she was acquitted and discharged.
The case has attracted significant public attention because of the allegations that led to Ms Tamakloe-Attionu’s prosecution, the long legal process surrounding the case and the political debate that followed the court’s decision.
Mr Amaliba, however, said the release should be viewed primarily as the result of a judicial decision rather than as a political development.
Amaliba Says Release Was Expected
Speaking on Joy FM’s Top Story on Wednesday, August 12, Mr Amaliba said Ms Tamakloe-Attionu’s release was simply the normal consequence of the Court of Appeal’s decision.
He explained that once a person has been acquitted and discharged, the law provides a period within which the judgment can be challenged or its execution stayed.
“That is the logical conclusion once the court said she was acquitted and discharged. Normally, there is a seven-day statutory stay of execution. After seven days, she can go home and walk free. So I didn’t expect anything apart from that.”
According to Mr Amaliba, the seven-day period following the judgment provided the relevant window for any legal action that could prevent the immediate implementation of the court’s decision.
Once that period passed without a successful application preventing her release, he said there was no unusual development in allowing the former MASLOC boss to regain her freedom.
His explanation comes at a time when the case has generated different interpretations, particularly after the Attorney-General initially sought to stay the execution of the Court of Appeal’s judgment before later withdrawing the application.
Attorney-General Withdraws Stay Application
The Attorney-General’s decision to withdraw the application seeking a stay of execution was an important development in the case.
The application had raised questions about whether the state intended to continue pursuing legal avenues that could delay Ms Tamakloe-Attionu’s release.
However, the withdrawal removed that immediate legal obstacle.
Mr Amaliba suggested that the decision may have followed a closer examination of the Court of Appeal’s judgment by the Attorney-General’s Office.
He stressed that he could not state with certainty why the application was withdrawn but offered his interpretation of what may have happened after the judgment was reviewed.
“I can only hazard a guess,” he said, suggesting that after examining the judgment, the Attorney-General may have concluded that there were insufficient grounds to pursue the matter further.
The explanation points to the difference between an initial legal decision and what may happen after lawyers have had more time to study a court’s reasoning.
A party may initially consider seeking a stay while assessing a judgment, but after reviewing the full decision, its legal team may decide that continuing with the application is unlikely to succeed.
Why the Court of Appeal Decision Matters
The Court of Appeal’s decision was central to Ms Tamakloe-Attionu’s release.
An acquittal and discharge means that the court has determined that the prosecution has not established the case against the accused to the required legal standard.
Once such a decision has been made, the state cannot simply disregard it.
Any further attempt to challenge the judgment must follow the legal procedures available under Ghana’s judicial system.
This is why Mr Amaliba believes the former MASLOC CEO’s release should not be presented as something unexpected.
Instead, he argued that it followed directly from the court’s decision.
The issue has also become part of a wider political debate, with the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) making claims about the handling of the case and the circumstances surrounding Ms Tamakloe-Attionu’s continued detention after the acquittal.
Amaliba Rejects NPP’s Political Interference Claims
Mr Amaliba also defended the government against claims from the NPP that Ms Tamakloe-Attionu’s release vindicated earlier accusations of political interference.
The opposition had questioned aspects of the case and the government’s handling of the former MASLOC chief executive’s situation.
Mr Amaliba rejected the suggestion that the government could have simply prevented her release if the courts had determined that she should be free.
He argued that the judiciary operates independently and that the government must respect decisions made by the courts.
“If the Supreme Court that he says he respects hadn’t acquitted and discharged the lady, even if we as a party wanted to do it, how could we have done it?” he asked.
His argument is that the government’s position cannot be separated from the authority of the courts.
Once a competent court reaches a decision, the executive branch and political parties cannot simply choose whether or not to recognise it.
A Case That Has Attracted Political Attention
The legal case involving Ms Tamakloe-Attionu has remained politically sensitive because of her previous position as head of the Microfinance and Small Loans Centre, commonly known as MASLOC.
MASLOC is a government institution that provides financial support and loan opportunities aimed at helping small businesses and individuals.
As a result, allegations involving the management of the institution can attract considerable public attention, particularly when they involve questions about the use of public funds.
Ms Tamakloe-Attionu’s case therefore became more than an ordinary criminal proceeding in the public discussion.
Political actors from both sides of the divide have used the case to make broader arguments about accountability, prosecution and the treatment of individuals accused of wrongdoing.
The Court of Appeal’s acquittal has now changed the legal position and has led to renewed discussion about the case.
Amaliba Says Courts Must Be Respected
A major part of Mr Amaliba’s argument is that the Court of Appeal’s decision must be treated as an independent judicial determination.
He maintained that the acquittal should not automatically be interpreted as proof that the government had previously acted improperly in keeping Ms Tamakloe-Attionu in custody.
Instead, he said the judicial process should be allowed to take its course.
The principle is important because criminal cases can involve several stages, including investigation, prosecution, trial, appeals and possible further legal challenges.
At each stage, the parties involved must operate within the legal framework.
The state may prosecute a person where it believes there is sufficient evidence to do so, but the courts ultimately determine whether the evidence meets the required legal standard.
When a court acquits an accused person, that decision must be respected unless it is successfully challenged through the appropriate legal process.
Why the Seven-Day Period Was Important
Mr Amaliba’s reference to the seven-day statutory stay of execution is also central to his explanation.
According to him, the period provides time for the legal process to accommodate possible further action following an acquittal.
During such a period, legal teams may consider whether there are grounds for another application or appeal.
If the relevant legal steps are not successfully taken to prevent the implementation of the judgment, the acquitted person can regain their freedom.
This explains why Mr Amaliba said he did not expect anything other than Ms Tamakloe-Attionu’s eventual release.
From his perspective, the outcome was consistent with the court’s judgment and the normal legal process that follows an acquittal and discharge.
Withdrawal of Application Changes the Situation
The Attorney-General’s withdrawal of the stay application further changed the circumstances surrounding Ms Tamakloe-Attionu’s detention.
Had the application remained active and succeeded, it could potentially have delayed the implementation of the Court of Appeal’s decision.
However, once the application was withdrawn, there was no longer an immediate state request seeking to prevent the execution of the judgment on that basis.
Mr Amaliba believes the withdrawal may have reflected a decision by the Attorney-General’s legal team after reviewing the appellate court’s reasoning.
The exact reasons for the withdrawal would ultimately depend on the legal advice and considerations within the Attorney-General’s Office.
For now, his comments provide one interpretation of why the application was abandoned.
What the Release Means for the Former MASLOC CEO
For Ms Tamakloe-Attionu, the release marks an important moment after a lengthy legal battle.
Being acquitted and discharged means she is no longer in the position of a person awaiting the outcome of the criminal charges on which she was tried, subject to any further lawful proceedings that may arise.
Her release also means she can begin rebuilding her personal and professional life outside custody.
The case, however, is likely to remain part of Ghana’s public debate because of the political and institutional issues surrounding it.
Questions about public accountability, the prosecution of former public officials and the independence of state institutions are likely to continue receiving attention.
The Broader Debate About Political Cases
The controversy surrounding Ms Tamakloe-Attionu’s case also highlights the difficult relationship between criminal justice and politics in Ghana.
When a former public official faces prosecution, supporters and opponents of the government may interpret the case differently.
Those supporting the prosecution may see it as an accountability measure, while political opponents may suspect that the legal process is being influenced by political considerations.
For that reason, the independence of the courts becomes particularly important.
Judicial decisions provide an avenue through which criminal allegations can be tested based on evidence and the law rather than political arguments.
Mr Amaliba’s position is that the Court of Appeal’s ruling should therefore be accepted on its legal merits.
Acquittal Does Not Automatically End Public Debate
Although Ms Tamakloe-Attionu has been acquitted and discharged, the public debate surrounding the case may not disappear immediately.
Criminal proceedings involving public officials often generate questions that extend beyond the courtroom.
People may still want to understand how the original allegations arose, what evidence was presented, why the prosecution reached the courts and what lessons public institutions can learn from the case.
However, those questions should be separated from the legal question of whether an accused person has been found guilty or not guilty.
An acquittal is a legal outcome and must be treated accordingly.
Political arguments about the case should therefore not replace the judicial determination.
Government and Opposition Expected to Continue Debate
The NDC and NPP are likely to maintain different interpretations of what the case means politically.
For the government and its supporters, Ms Tamakloe-Attionu’s release can be presented as evidence that the judicial process was allowed to operate independently.
For the opposition, the sequence of events may continue to raise questions about why she remained in custody after the Court of Appeal had acquitted and discharged her and why the Attorney-General initially sought a stay before withdrawing the application.
These competing interpretations are likely to keep the issue in the public conversation.
However, the immediate legal outcome is clear: Ms Tamakloe-Attionu has been released following the Court of Appeal’s acquittal and discharge.
What Happens Next?
The next stage will depend on whether any further legal action is pursued in accordance with the law.
Mr Amaliba’s comments suggest that the Attorney-General’s decision to withdraw the stay application may indicate that the state does not currently see sufficient grounds to continue with that particular application.
However, any further steps would have to be determined by the relevant legal authorities and the available legal procedures.
For Ms Tamakloe-Attionu, the focus is now likely to shift away from custody and towards life after the case.
For the government, the NPP and other political actors, the case may continue to feature in arguments about the independence of institutions and the handling of corruption-related prosecutions.
Final Thoughts
Abraham Amaliba has described Sedina Tamakloe-Attionu’s release as the “logical conclusion” of the Court of Appeal’s decision to acquit and discharge her.
He said the seven-day statutory period following the judgment provided the relevant time for any legal action to be considered, after which her release was the expected outcome.
He also suggested that the Attorney-General’s withdrawal of the application seeking a stay may have followed a review of the Court of Appeal’s judgment and a conclusion that there were insufficient grounds to continue pursuing the application.
Mr Amaliba rejected claims that the release proved political interference, arguing that an independent court had made the decision and that the government was required to respect it.
“If the Supreme Court that he says he respects hadn’t acquitted and discharged the lady, even if we as a party wanted to do it, how could we have done it?” he asked.
The case is likely to remain a subject of political and public discussion, but the immediate legal position following the Court of Appeal’s acquittal is that Ms Tamakloe-Attionu has regained her freedom.
The development also serves as a reminder of the importance of allowing Ghana’s judicial processes to operate independently, particularly in politically sensitive cases involving former public officials.
