TNR FILES
In a sweeping decision that rebukes the handling of one of Ghana’s most high-profile corruption cases, the Court of Appeal has overturned the conviction of former Microfinance and Small Loans Centre (MASLOC) CEO Sedina Christine Tamakloe Attionu, finding that the trial judge fundamentally misapplied the burden of proof and allowed “incurably defective” charges to proceed.
The three-member panel, led by Justice Emmanuel Ankamah, ruled that the High Court’s Financial Crimes Division erred when it required the appellant to prove her innocence on multiple counts, including theft, willfully causing financial loss to the state, and money laundering. The ruling, dated July 30, 2026, represents a significant blow to the state’s pursuit of high-level financial crimes.
“Unless a statute plainly places the burden of proving a particular element of an offence upon the Accused, she is under no obligation whatsoever to lead evidence in aid of a Prosecution case that has not yet reached the threshold the law demands of it,” wrote Justice Ankamah. “To require otherwise is to ask the Accused to complete the Prosecution’s unfinished work and to convict her for declining the invitation.”
Tamakloe, who served as MASLOC’s CEO from November 2013 to January 2017, was initially convicted in April 2024 on seventy-eight counts and sentenced to multiple prison terms, all to run concurrently. She had fled the country during trial and did not appear for the conclusion of proceedings.
‘GOLDEN THREAD’ OF JUSTICE
The appeal, filed by Tamakloe while in absentia, challenged her conviction on nine grounds. Among them was a fundamental objection to the charges themselves, particularly those relating to willfully causing financial loss to the state.
The court found that counts accusing Tamakloe of financial loss were “incurably deficient” because they omitted “an indispensable ingredient of the offence: the particular act or omission of the Appellant said to have been willfully committed and by which the alleged financial loss was occasioned.”
“In the case of Ibrahim Adam & Ors v. The Republic, the essential elements of willfully causing financial loss to the state was neatly set out,” Justice Ankamah wrote, citing precedent that requires proof that the loss was caused through the accused’s action or omission and that the accused intended or desired to cause it.
The court applied principles established in the landmark Ernest Thompson case, which involved former officials of the National Communications Authority, requiring detailed particulars in financial crime charges.
“The constitutional command in Article 19(2)(d) of the 1992 Constitution, that an accused be informed, in detail, of the nature of the offence charged is mandatory and anterior to any curative provision,” the judgment stated.
A QUESTION OF AUTHENTICITY
The court was equally critical of the prosecution’s evidence in the case’s centerpiece allegation: that Tamakloe stole GHS500,000 that was returned to her by Obaatanpa Micro-Finance Company Limited, a refund from an investment that had been declined.
The prosecution relied heavily on a letter Exhibit A purportedly signed by Tamakloe acknowledging receipt of the cash refund. But the authenticity of the signature was never properly established, the court found.
“The very suggestion that the Appellant was required to prove whether the signature on Exhibit A was hers demonstrates that doubts attended its genuineness,” Justice Ankamah wrote.
The trial judge had placed upon Tamakloe “the burden of proving whether the signature was hers and of explaining whether she had received the GHS500,000.00,” an approach the appeals court found fundamentally flawed.
PHANTOM PROGRAMS
The court also found fault with the prosecution’s case regarding GHS1.8 million intended for a national sensitization and monitoring program in 2016. The prosecution alleged the funds were stolen, but the court noted that no MASLOC Regional Directors were called to testify that the programs did not occur.
Instead, investigators and an auditor relayed information from regional directors testimony the court ruled constituted inadmissible hearsay.
“The Respondent’s failure to call the Regional Directors, who were the declarants, remains unexplained,” Justice Ankamah wrote.
MONEY LAUNDERING AND PROCUREMENT
The court also overturned the money laundering convictions, finding they lacked foundation without the predicate offenses of theft. The charges of improper payment of public funds were similarly dismissed after the prosecution’s own witness, the Head of Finance at MASLOC, testified that he had found nothing irregular in the processes.
On the alleged unlawful procurement of 350 vehicles from Mac Autos and Spare Parts Ghana Ltd, the court noted that Tamakloe did not actually authorize payment for the vehicles during her tenure that was done by her successor.
ANTI-MONE LAUNDERING FRAMEWORK
The decision raises questions about the future prosecution of financial crimes in Ghana. While the Court of Appeal emphasized the need for meticulous charges, legal experts note that the ruling may be appealed to the Supreme Court.
The judgment reinforces the principle that prosecutors must establish the elements of an offense with precision, particularly in complex financial cases. As Justice Ankamah concluded, quoting the seminal 1935 British case Woolmington v DPP: “The golden thread running through our criminal jurisprudence [is] that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused, and that this burden never shifts unless the enabling statute or law has expressly and clearly said otherwise.”
The court ordered that all convictions and sentences be set aside. Tamakloe, who remains outside the jurisdiction, is technically free of all criminal liability, though the court noted that the Republic may institute forfeiture proceedings against her assets.