Why the Court of Appeal overturned all 78 convictions against former MASLOC boss Sedina Tamakloe

The Court of Appeal has overturned all 78 convictions against former Microfinance and Small Loans Centre (MASLOC) Chief Executive Sedina Christine Tamakloe Attionu after finding that the prosecution failed to establish several of its central allegations and that some of the charges themselves were legally defective.

The judgment, running to 124 numbered paragraphs, systematically examined each category of charges, measuring the prosecution's evidence against Ghana's Constitution, the Evidence Act and the standard of proof required in criminal cases.

Rather than focusing on procedural technicalities, the court identified fundamental evidential shortcomings that, in its view, made the convictions unsafe.

Here are the key findings that led the court to quash every conviction.

1. The prosecution failed to prove the GH¢500,000 theft allegation

One of the most serious allegations against Ms Tamakloe was that she personally received GH¢500,000 in cash from Obaatanpa Microfinance Company in August 2014.

The prosecution relied principally on a letter allegedly signed by the former MASLOC chief acknowledging receipt of the money.

But the Court of Appeal found that after Ms Tamakloe questioned whether the signature on the document was hers during a police interview, it became the prosecution's responsibility to prove the document was authentic.

Instead, the trial court effectively required the accused to explain the signature herself.

The appellate judges ruled that this reversed the constitutional burden of proof.

They further held that the document was never properly authenticated in accordance with the Evidence Act because no witness compared it with an original document and no certified copy was produced.

The court also pointed to documentary evidence showing that MASLOC continued demanding interest on the same GH¢500,000 investment long after the prosecution claimed the money had been refunded in cash.

According to the judges, those documents undermined the prosecution's own theory that the money had already been received and stolen.

The court concluded that there was no proof beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Tamakloe ever received the alleged cash refund.

2. Investigators never verified whether the sensitisation programme took place

The prosecution also alleged that more than GH¢2 million earmarked for a nationwide sensitisation programme for MASLOC beneficiaries had been stolen because the programme never occurred.

The Court of Appeal found significant gaps in the investigation.

Although the programme reportedly covered more than 85,000 beneficiaries nationwide, investigators admitted they did not contact a single beneficiary to establish whether any sensitisation activities had taken place.

Instead, investigators relied on statements attributed to MASLOC Regional Directors.

However, none of those officials appeared before the trial court to testify.

The Court held that those statements amounted to hearsay because they were introduced through other witnesses without the original declarants being called to give evidence.

The judges also noted that investigators interviewed MASLOC officials who handled payments connected with the programme, yet none stated that the sensitisation exercise had not taken place.

Taken together, the Court concluded that the prosecution had not established that the programme was fictitious.

3. The prosecution's own witness undermined the Kantamanto theft charge

The Court of Appeal also reviewed allegations that Ms Tamakloe stole GH¢579,800 intended for victims of the 2015 Kantamanto market fire.

According to the judgment, the prosecution's own principal witness—her successor as MASLOC Chief Executive—testified under cross-examination that his own inquiries showed the funds had actually reached the intended beneficiaries.

The appellate judges described that evidence as fundamentally inconsistent with the allegation that the money had been stolen.

Where the prosecution's own witness confirmed that public funds had been used for their intended purpose, the court held, the theft charge could not be sustained.

4. Some charges did not comply with constitutional requirements

The Court also found that several counts alleging "wilfully causing financial loss to the state" and "causing loss to public property" were legally defective.

The judges held that the charges merely repeated the legal description of the offences without explaining the specific acts or omissions allegedly committed by the accused.

The Constitution requires every accused person to be informed in sufficient detail of the allegations they must answer.

According to the Court, these charges failed to provide that detail.

The judges held that this was not a technical drafting error capable of being corrected later but a constitutional defect that rendered those counts invalid.

5. Evidence showed finance officials approved disputed payments

The Court also considered allegations surrounding ex gratia and leave payments made to Ms Tamakloe and her deputy.

Evidence before the court showed that MASLOC's Head of Finance personally examined the supporting documents before approving the payments.

The prosecution produced no evidence that the finance officials had been deceived or that false documentation had been submitted.

On the disputed Mac Autos vehicle procurement contract, the Court observed that the Ministry of Finance had confirmed the financing arrangement to the Public Procurement Authority.

It also noted that Ms Tamakloe's successor later renegotiated and continued implementing the same contract.

The judges said those facts weakened the prosecution's contention that the procurement process itself was unlawful.

Money laundering convictions also fell

Having quashed the underlying theft convictions, the Court ruled that the related money laundering convictions could not survive because they depended on proof that the alleged theft offences had occurred.

With every conviction set aside, the Court declined to consider whether the original 10-year prison sentence imposed by the High Court was appropriate, holding that there was no valid conviction upon which any sentence could stand.

In concluding the judgment, the Court reaffirmed one of the central principles of criminal justice: that the burden of proving guilt rests entirely on the prosecution and never shifts to the accused.

The judges described that principle not as a procedural technicality but as a constitutional safeguard that gives effect to the presumption of innocence.