Break down of why court acquitted former MASLOC CEO Sedina Tamakloe
Activist and legal academic Stephen Kwaku Asare, popularly known as Kwaku Azar, has provided a simplified explanation of the Court of Appeal’s decision to acquit and discharge former MASLOC Chief Executive Officer Sedinam Tamakloe Attionu.
In his latest “Without Tears” series, Kwaku Azar explained that the main issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the prosecution had successfully proved its case against Sedinam beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court of Appeal eventually overturned her convictions and sentences after finding that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not enough to support the criminal convictions.
The court also found that the trial judge had wrongly shifted the responsibility of proving certain facts from the prosecution to the accused.
According to Kwaku Azar, the decision is an important reminder of a basic principle in criminal law. The prosecution must prove every part of a criminal offence beyond reasonable doubt. An accused person should not be forced to prove their innocence simply because the prosecution has made an allegation against them.
Court of Appeal Overturns Sedinam’s Conviction
A three-member panel of the Court of Appeal unanimously allowed Sedinam Tamakloe’s appeal.
The court quashed all her convictions and sentences and acquitted and discharged her.
The 94-page judgment was delivered by Justice E. Ankamah, with Justices S. Diawuo and E. S. Amedahe agreeing with the decision.
Sedinam Tamakloe, who previously served as the Chief Executive Officer of the Microfinance and Small Loans Centre, MASLOC, was prosecuted together with former MASLOC Operations Manager Daniel Axim.
The two faced several allegations relating to transactions carried out during their time at MASLOC.
The prosecution called seven witnesses during the trial.
Sedinam attended most of the proceedings. However, on July 30, 2021, she was allowed to take her passport to travel outside Ghana for a medical review. She was expected to return to court on October 10, 2021, but she did not return.
The High Court later ruled that she had breached her bail conditions by remaining outside the country.
The trial continued in her absence, and on April 16, 2024, the High Court convicted her on all the charges against her. She was given several concurrent prison sentences, with an effective prison term of 10 years.
She appealed the decision on May 9, 2024.
What Were the Charges Against Her?
Sedinam and Daniel Axim were facing 78 charges, including stealing, conspiracy, wilfully causing financial loss to the State, causing loss to public property, money laundering, improper payment of public funds, unauthorised financial commitments and breaches of the Public Procurement Act.
The prosecution alleged that several financial transactions at MASLOC were improperly handled.
Among the allegations was that Obaatanpa Microfinance returned GH¢500,000 in cash directly to Sedinam and that she dishonestly kept the money.
She was also accused of misappropriating funds released for nationwide sensitisation, monitoring, training and financial literacy programmes.
Another allegation was that she misappropriated GH¢579,800 meant to support victims of the Kantamanto market fire.
The prosecution also accused her of entering into a contract to procure 350 vehicles without securing the necessary approval from the Public Procurement Authority.
There were further allegations concerning the prices of the vehicles and the purchase of 200 mobile phones at a cost that was allegedly much higher than their market value.
The prosecution also raised concerns about ex gratia and leave payments made to Sedinam and her deputy.
Could Sedinam Appeal While Outside Ghana?
One of the issues considered by the Court of Appeal was whether Sedinam had the right to appeal her conviction while she was outside Ghana.
The Republic argued that she should not be allowed to challenge her conviction because she was considered a fugitive.
However, the Court of Appeal rejected that argument.
The court found that neither the Constitution nor any of the legal authorities presented by the Republic prevented a person convicted in absentia from appealing against the conviction.
The court also found that Sedinam had filed her appeal within the required time and followed the legal procedure for filing an appeal.
Her absence from Ghana, therefore, did not prevent the Court of Appeal from hearing the case.
Seven Grounds of Appeal Were Struck Out
The Court of Appeal also struck out seven of Sedinam’s nine grounds of appeal.
The court said those grounds simply claimed that the trial court had made errors without clearly explaining what those errors were.
In simple terms, the court said an appellant cannot simply tell an appeal court that a lower court was wrong. The appellant must explain exactly what the lower court did wrong and why the decision was legally incorrect.
However, the removal of those seven grounds did not end Sedinam’s appeal.
The Court of Appeal still considered her main argument that the convictions were unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence presented during the trial.
Court Finds Some Charges Were Defective
The Court of Appeal also found problems with several of the charges brought against Sedinam.
According to the court, some of the charges did not provide enough information about the specific acts, omissions or transactions that were alleged to constitute the offences.
The court explained that in a criminal case, an accused person must be given enough information to understand exactly what they are accused of doing.
Simply naming a criminal offence is not enough. The charge must provide sufficient details to allow the accused person to properly understand and respond to the allegations.
However, the Court of Appeal did not rely only on the defective nature of some of the charges.
The judges also examined the evidence presented by the prosecution to determine whether it was sufficient to prove the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt.
Court Says Trial Judge Shifted Burden of Proof
One of the most important parts of the judgment concerned the burden of proof.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had repeatedly shifted the burden of proof to Sedinam.
Some of the charges claimed that she acted “without authority”, “without approval” or “without due process”.
The trial judge had reasoned that because the prosecution alleged that Sedinam did not have the required authority or approval, she had to prove that she actually had the authority or had followed the correct procedure.
The Court of Appeal disagreed with this approach.
The judges explained that the prosecution cannot shift the burden of proof simply by presenting an allegation in negative terms.
The prosecution must prove every part of the alleged offence, including the claim that the accused person acted without authority, approval or due process.
The court also said that an accused person’s failure to testify, return to Ghana or provide an explanation cannot be used to fill gaps in the prosecution’s case.
GH¢500,000 Obaatanpa Refund Allegation
The prosecution claimed that Obaatanpa Microfinance returned GH¢500,000 in cash directly to Sedinam and that she dishonestly appropriated the money.
However, the Court of Appeal found major problems with the evidence supporting the allegation.
The original acknowledgment letter said to have confirmed the payment was not presented in court. Instead, the prosecution relied on a copy obtained from Obaatanpa.
The court also noted that no corresponding copy from MASLOC was produced, even though the reference number on the letter suggested that MASLOC should have had its own copy.
The prosecution also referred to WhatsApp messages that were allegedly exchanged between the chairman of Obaatanpa and Sedinam concerning the refund. However, those messages were not presented to the court.
The court further considered the fact that Sedinam continued to sign letters demanding interest from Obaatanpa on the GH¢500,000 investment after the alleged cash refund.
The Court of Appeal found that this conduct was difficult to reconcile with the claim that she had already received the money.
The judges therefore concluded that the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that Sedinam received the GH¢500,000.
Since the prosecution could not prove that she received the money, it also could not establish that she dishonestly appropriated it.
The conviction relating to the GH¢500,000 was therefore overturned.
Sensitisation and Training Funds
The prosecution also alleged that Sedinam and Daniel Axim stole GH¢1,816,000 released for sensitisation and monitoring programmes.
There were also allegations involving other funds meant for training, sensitisation and financial literacy programmes.
The prosecution argued that some of the programmes either did not take place or were carried out only on a limited scale.
However, the Court of Appeal held that the evidence was not sufficient to prove that Sedinam stole the money.
The court noted that relevant regional officers and beneficiaries who could have provided direct evidence about the programmes were not called to testify.
Instead, the trial judge had expected Sedinam to prove that the money was properly used.
The Court of Appeal again found that this approach wrongly shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused.
Kantamanto Fire Victims’ Funds
Sedinam was also accused of dishonestly appropriating GH¢579,800 that was meant for victims of the Kantamanto market fire.
However, one of the prosecution’s witnesses admitted that investigations had shown that the money had been distributed to the intended victims.
The witness also said that another person had confirmed the distribution, although that information was not included in the report presented as evidence.
The Court of Appeal said this evidence seriously weakened the prosecution’s case.
If the money had been distributed to the people it was intended for, then the prosecution could not successfully prove that Sedinam had dishonestly appropriated it.
The conviction relating to the Kantamanto funds was therefore set aside.
Money Laundering Convictions Also Overturned
The Court of Appeal also overturned the money laundering convictions.
The court explained that the alleged stealing offences were the underlying offences supporting the money laundering charges.
This meant the prosecution first had to prove that the money involved came from an unlawful activity.
Since the court found that the relevant stealing offences had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution could not establish that the money was the proceeds of crime.
The foundation for the money laundering convictions therefore disappeared.
Ex Gratia and Leave Payments
The court also overturned Sedinam’s convictions relating to improper payment of public funds.
Evidence presented during the trial showed that MASLOC’s Head of Finance had processed and authorised the payments based on appointment documents issued by the Chief of Staff at the Office of the President.
The witness said he did not find anything wrong with the documents and authorised the payments on that basis.
The Court of Appeal found no evidence that Sedinam personally authorised an improper payment, deceived the Finance Department, made a false statement or caused a payment to be made in violation of a specific verification procedure.
The prosecution therefore failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
GH¢61.7 Million Vehicle Commitment
The Court of Appeal also overturned the conviction involving an alleged unauthorised financial commitment of about GH¢61.7 million relating to the procurement of vehicles.
The prosecution claimed that Sedinam made the financial commitments without the required authority and without following the proper procedures.
However, the Court of Appeal said the prosecution did not clearly identify the verification procedure that applied or explain exactly how Sedinam had breached it.
The evidence also showed that the Ministry of Finance had written to the Public Procurement Authority regarding the financing arrangements for the vehicles.
The Court of Appeal stressed that it was not Sedinam’s responsibility to prove that she had the required authority.
The prosecution had the duty to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she did not have the authority.
Procurement Convictions Set Aside
The procurement-related convictions were also overturned.
The Court of Appeal found that the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the required approval for the procurement of the 350 vehicles had been denied.
The court also noted that Sedinam did not authorise payment for the vehicles while she was still in office.
Her successor later renegotiated the prices and authorised payments in 2017 and 2018, after Sedinam had left MASLOC.
The court therefore concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the procurement offences against her.
Court Quashes All Convictions
The Court of Appeal did not simply reduce Sedinam’s 10-year prison sentence.
Instead, the court quashed all the convictions against her.
The judges explained that a sentence can only exist if there is a valid conviction. Once all the convictions were overturned, there was no lawful sentence left to reduce.
The Court of Appeal therefore allowed Sedinam’s appeal and acquitted and discharged her.
What the Judgment Means
Kwaku Azar’s explanation highlights the importance of the principle that the prosecution carries the burden of proving guilt in a criminal case.
The Court of Appeal found that the prosecution’s evidence did not meet the required standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The judgment also made it clear that an accused person cannot be required to prove that they had authority, approval or followed the correct procedure simply because the prosecution alleges that they did not.
The decision does not necessarily mean that every transaction at MASLOC was properly handled or that there were no administrative problems.
Rather, the court’s decision means that the specific criminal offences brought against Sedinam were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The case therefore serves as a reminder that suspicion, unanswered questions or possible administrative failures cannot replace the legal requirement to prove every element of a criminal offence.
In the final decision, the Court of Appeal held that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges against Sedinam to the required legal standard.
Her convictions and sentences were consequently quashed, and she was acquitted and discharged.
