Sedina acquittal: Court of Appeal judgment very weak, poor in reasoning — Former Deputy AG

Former Deputy Attorney General, Alfred Tuah Yeboah has criticised the Court of Appeal’s decision to overturn the conviction of former Microfinance and Small Loans Centre (MASLOC) Chief Executive Officer, Sedina Christine Tamakloe Attionu, describing the judgment as legally weak and flawed in its reasoning.

Speaking on Eyewitness News on Friday, July 31, he took particular issue with the appellate court’s conclusion that the charge sheet underpinning the prosecution was defective, arguing that the finding was unsupported by law.

According to him, the charge sheet was valid and, even if it had contained defects, the Court of Appeal should not have relied on that ground to overturn the conviction where sufficient evidence existed to support the trial court’s findings.

“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.

He argued that the judges failed to properly apply the relevant provisions of the Courts Act, particularly Section 31(2), which, he said, makes it clear that an appellate court should not allow an appeal solely because of defects in a charge sheet if the evidence on record is sufficient to sustain a conviction.

“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 come a day after the Court of Appeal unanimously quashed the conviction of the former MASLOC CEO, setting aside her 10-year prison sentence and acquitting and discharging her on all charges.

In its 94-page judgment delivered on Thursday, July 30, the three-member panel comprising Justices Emmanuel Ankamah, Emmanuel Senyo Amedahe and Samuel Obeng-Diawuo held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court further ruled 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 appellate court also dismissed a preliminary objection by the Attorney-General, who had argued that Tamakloe could not invoke the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction because she absconded during her trial before the High Court.

-citinewsroom