Sedina Tamakloe ruling 'cannot meet legal scrutiny' - Tuah-Yeboah

Former Deputy Attorney General Alfred Tuah Yeboah has launched a scathing attack on the Court of Appeal's decision to acquit and discharge former Microfinance and Small Loans Centre (MASLOC) Chief Executive Officer Sedina Christine Tamakloe Attionu, describing the judgment as legally unsound and arguing that the judges misapplied the law in overturning her conviction.

Speaking on Eyewitness News on Friday, July 31, 2026, Tuah Yeboah said the appellate court's conclusion that the charge sheet was defective could not justify setting aside the conviction, insisting that the evidence on record should have been the determining factor.

“I have read the judgment and my initial comments are that it is poor in reasoning, poor in analysis, and lacks proper evaluation of the evidence on record. The judgment is very weak and cannot meet legal scrutiny,” he stated.

Court of Appeal acquits and discharges former MASLOC boss Sedina Tamakloe

The former Deputy Attorney General maintained that the Court of Appeal failed to properly apply the provisions of the Courts Act, arguing that even where a charge sheet contains defects, an appeal should not succeed if there is sufficient evidence to support the conviction.

He pointed to Section 31(2) of the Courts Act, which he said expressly bars an appellate court from allowing an appeal solely based on a defective charge sheet where the evidence justifies the trial court's decision.

“If the charge sheet, as they claim, was defective, then there are two key statutes the Court of Appeal ought to have considered. Section 31(2) of the Courts Act is clear that an appellate court shall not allow an appeal on the ground of a defective charge sheet, provided there is evidence on record to support the conviction, regardless of how the charges were framed,” Tuah Yeboah argued.

His comments follow Thursday's unanimous decision by the Court of Appeal to quash the conviction of Sedina Christine Tamakloe Attionu, setting aside her 10-year prison sentence and acquitting and discharging her on all charges.

In its 94-page judgment, the three-member panel comprising Justices Emmanuel Ankamah, Emmanuel Senyo Amedahe and Samuel Obeng-Diawuo ruled that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court further held that the trial judge improperly shifted the burden of proof onto the accused and relied on evidence that did not meet the required legal standard.

The Court of Appeal also dismissed a preliminary objection by the Attorney-General, who had argued that Tamakloe could not invoke the court's jurisdiction because she absconded during her trial before the High Court.

NA/AM

Lawyer Maurice Ampaw on judicial corruption, national issues and Christian faith