Convicted in Absentia: Lawyer details when Sedina Tamakloe’ sentence really took effect

Legal practitioner, Frederick Gurah Sampson, has sought to explain when former Chief Executive Officer of the Microfinance and Small Loans Centre (MASLOC), Sedina Christine Tamakloe-Attionu's 10-year prison sentence effectively starting running.

In a legal analysis on the application of convictions in absentia in a publication on the law platform on June 30, 2026, Sampson explained that although Ghana's criminal procedure law states that a sentence takes effect from the day it is pronounced, that provision should not be interpreted to mean that a convicted person who absconds can serve a prison term while outside the jurisdiction of the courts.

Sedina Tamakloe-Attionu was convicted in absentia by an High Court in Accra on April 16, 2024, after failing to return to Ghana to continue standing trial.

BNI, Police Hospital, Nsawam Prison: New details emerge on Sedina Tamakloe's journey to jail

She had been granted permission to travel abroad for medical treatment after her passport, which had initially been retained as part of her bail conditions, was temporarily released.

She was tried in her absence, although she was represented by legal counsel, and was subsequently sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment after being found guilty on multiple charges, including stealing, conspiracy to steal, wilfully causing financial loss to the state, money laundering, causing loss to public property and the improper payment of public funds.

Following the judgment, legal scholars have debated whether her sentence began on the date it was imposed or whether it will only commence after she is returned to Ghana.

According to Sampson, interpreting Section 315(3) of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30) literally would produce an absurd outcome by allowing convicted persons to evade imprisonment simply by remaining outside the country until the sentence period expires.

He argued that Ghanaian courts have consistently adopted a purposive approach to statutory interpretation, which requires judges to interpret legislation in a manner that promotes justice and reflects the intention of Parliament.

Citing legal authorities, including constitutional principles, judicial precedents and legal scholar Joseph Kobina Essel Edzie's writings on statutory interpretation, Sampson maintained that laws should not be interpreted in a way that leads to unreasonable or unjust consequences.

He further referenced the Canadian case Waugh v Pedneault, which held that legislatures are presumed to enact laws that promote fairness and the public interest rather than absurd outcomes.

Sampson contended that Section 315 of Act 30 must be read together with the rest of the legislation and other applicable laws, rather than in isolation.

"It cannot be the intention of Parliament that a person convicted in absentia could simply abscond for the duration of the sentence and later return claiming to have served the prison term," he argued.

He concluded that a prison sentence imposed in absentia only begins when the convicted person is extradited or otherwise returned to Ghana and placed in the custody of the Republic to commence serving the sentence.

According to him, any contrary interpretation stems from an overly literal reading of the law and fails to reflect the purpose of the legislation or established principles of statutory interpretation.