In a 94-page ruling issued by Justice E. Ankamah, with Justices S. Diawuo and E. S. Amedahe concurring, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal unanimously granted Sedinam Tamakloe's appeal, overturned her convictions and sentences, and cleared and released her. Former MASLOC CEO Sedinam Tamakloe and former operations manager Daniel Axim were charged in the case for allegedly embezzling money from MASLOC transactions.
The main accusations against them were that they had taken a GH¢500,000 cash refund without authorisation, that they had misappropriated funds intended for disaster victims and nationwide sensitisation, that they had executed a procurement contract for 350 vehicles without the required authorisation, that these vehicles were significantly overpriced, that they had made improper payments for mobile phones, and that they had made unauthorised payments to themselves. They were charged with 78 charges in all, including theft, conspiracy, and Public Procurement Act violations.
During the trial, seven witnesses were called by the prosecution. Sedinam attended the majority of it, but on July 30, 2021, she was granted a passport to travel overseas for medical reasons. However, she neglected to return by October 10, 2021. Her sureties' bonds were forfeited on January 24, 2023, after the High Court declared on January 18, 2022, that she had fled. The trial proceeded in her absence, and on April 16, 2024, she was found guilty on several counts and sentenced to ten years in jail.
She filed an appeal on May 9, 2024, citing nine grounds, including that her convictions were irrational and unsupported by evidence. Particular grievances included flawed charges, the prosecution's inability to establish crucial components of the offences, the trial judge's incorrect burden-shifting, insufficient evidence to support individual convictions, and a severe punishment.
The Republic argued that Sedinam should not be permitted to file an appeal because he was a fugitive. Her timely filed appeal preserved the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction despite her absence from Ghana, the Court confirmed, ruling that neither the Constitution nor any referenced law barred a person convicted in absentia the right to appeal.
The Court dismissed seven of Sedinam's appeal grounds (b through h) because they did not explain how the trial court erred in finding her guilty, highlighting the fact that merely saying "the judge was wrong" is insufficient. Ground (a), which contends that the convictions were irrational and unsupported by evidence, was still taken into consideration. Due to insufficient details about the conduct or omissions that constituted the crimes, the Court determined that a number of the charges were clearly flawed. It stated that rather than merely listing an offence, a charge must provide sufficient information for the accused to comprehend the charges.
The Court assessed whether the prosecution's evidence sufficiently supported the offences in spite of these flaws. The Court pointed out a major mistake made by the trial judge, who incorrectly flipped the burden of proof by implying that Sedinam had to demonstrate her authority or adhere to due process. The Court made it clear that the prosecution must prove every element of the offence, including the lack of power, approval, or due process, and that the burden of proof cannot be shifted simply by wording accusations negatively. A weak prosecution case cannot be strengthened by an accused person's silence or incapacity to produce evidence.
The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sedinam received the GH¢500,000 Obaatanpa reimbursement, according to the court's ruling. The lack of a MASLOC copy, even though the reference number indicated one should exist, and the absence of the original acknowledgement letter from Sedinam—only a duplicate from Obaatanpa was provided—were major problems. MASLOC personnel said that they had not viewed an original document for comparison.
Furthermore, the allegation of cash receipt was at odds with Sedinam's persistent claims for interest on the investment. Because proof of receipt was required to prove dishonest appropriation, the Court overturned the conviction pertaining to the GH¢500,000 reimbursement. The prosecution alleged that Sedinam and Daniel Axim embezzled GH¢1,816,000 from the monies designated for training, monitoring, and sensitisation, even though the MASLOC Board had only granted GH¢1,706,000. The programs were allegedly either nonexistent or just partially implemented.
Due to the prosecution's failure to identify pertinent regional authorities or beneficiaries who could vouch for the programs' execution, the court determined that the prosecution had not shown theft beyond a reasonable doubt.The trial judge's expectation for Sedinam to prove proper usage of the funds improperly shifted the burden of proof onto her. Hence, the Court concluded that the prosecution's case was not substantiated.
Sedinam was accused of dishonestly stealing GH¢579,800 meant for fire victims in the Kantamanto fire-victim monies case, which was resolved decisively. The court overturned the conviction and punishment pertaining to these funds after the prosecution's witnesses acknowledged that the money had in fact been given to the victims, disproving the theft accusation. Because the money-laundering convictions depended on establishing underlying theft charges, they were also overturned.
The prosecution was unable to prove that the funds came from illegal activity because these offences were unsuccessful. The Head of Finance from MASLOC testified that payments were authorised based on documentation from the Chief of Staff and that Sedinam had committed no personal misconduct, therefore the Court also reversed convictions related to inappropriate public fund payments.
Additionally, the Court rejected the conviction for making an unauthorised financial commitment of GH¢61.7 million, emphasising that Sedinam was not required to establish her authorisation and that the prosecution had not sufficiently identified the pertinent verification procedures that she had violated. The prosecution still had the burden of proof, but they were unable to prove that she behaved inappropriately.
Because the prosecution was unable to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the required clearances were withheld, the Court of Appeal overturned all procurement convictions against Sedinam. It made clear that Sedinam did not approve car payments while she was in office because her successor renegotiated and approved payments in 2017 and 2018. According to the Court, complaints about excessiveness are moot because invalidated convictions nullify any legitimate penalty, hence the convictions could not simply be changed.
The trial judge misplaced the burden of proof on Sedinam, the prosecution's evidence was insufficient, and the accused's absence or failure to testify cannot fill in the gaps in the evidence, according to the ruling. Even though Sedinam was cleared of all charges, the ruling stressed that an acquittal does not prove that transactions at the Microfinance and Small Loans Center (MASLOC) were legitimate or defendable.
The main takeaway emphasises that the prosecution bears the burden of proof and that it cannot be shifted to the accused. Justice Ankamah pointed out that it would unfairly shift the burden of proof if the accused were required to address the prosecution's deficiencies.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!