Broadcast journalist and private legal practitioner Samson Lardy Anyenini says the acquittal and discharge of former MASLOC Chief Executive Officer Sedina Tamakloe-Attionu by the Court of Appeal reinforces fundamental principles of criminal justice, including the burden of proof, fair trial rights, properly framed charges and the requirement that allegations must be backed by evidence.

Breaking down the judgment in a Facebook post on Monday, August 3, 2026, Anyenini said the Court of Appeal’s decision did not amount to a declaration that the allegations against Sedina were false.

Rather, he explained that the court found that the prosecution failed to present evidence capable of meeting the constitutional standard required for criminal convictions.

“Perhaps the most significant procedural ruling concerned Counts 36 through 68, which charged Sedina with willfully causing financial loss to the State. The Court noted that the particulars of the offence failed to disclose the specific physical acts, omissions, or statutory duties that she purportedly breached,” he wrote.

According to Anyenini, the court held that the failure to provide those details affected Sedina’s constitutional right to a fair trial.

“Depriving an accused of these details violates Article 19(2)(d) of the Constitution. Such structural defects strip the charges of legal substance and cannot be cured by general procedural provisions such as Section 406 of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act (Act 30),” he wrote.

Anyenini said prosecutors must ensure that charges clearly identify the specific conduct alleged to constitute a crime.

A charge sheet, he explained, must do more than cite a statutory provision; it must outline the specific actions or failures of duty that amount to an offence.

“Charges must be legally sound: A charge sheet must do more than cite a statutory provision; it must state the specific actions or failures of duty that constitute the crime. Vague or incomplete charges are incurably defective and void ab initio,” he noted.

‘Do not nurture a monster for political gain’ – Samson Anyenini to politicians

Another major lesson from the judgment, Anyenini said, is that the responsibility of proving guilt remains with the prosecution.

He explained that the Court of Appeal found that the High Court had wrongly placed an evidential burden on Sedina by expecting her to explain aspects of the prosecution’s case.

“The burden of proof never shifts to the defence. An accused person is under no legal obligation to explain suspicious circumstances, clarify disputed signatures, or fill gaps in the prosecution's evidence,” he noted.

Anyenini further highlighted the court’s finding that the prosecution’s case on the payments in question was legally unsustainable.

“The court found that the prosecution’s case was legally unsupportable and the trial court's evaluation was deeply flawed because Sedina did not make the payments,” he wrote.

He stated that the prosecution’s own witness, the Head of Finance at MASLOC, testified that he reviewed the documentation and processed the payments through established administrative procedures.

“Crucially, the prosecution's own witness, the Head of Finance (PW5), who actively processed the payments, testified under oath that he vetted the documentation, processed the disbursements according to established administrative workflow, and found no wrongdoing or irregularity,” Anyenini wrote.

He said the broader message from the judgment is that criminal convictions must be based on evidence rather than the seriousness of allegations.

According to him, the foundation of criminal justice remains unchanged: the State must prove guilt, and no person can be convicted merely because allegations against them appear serious.

Anyenini said the Court of Appeal’s decision reinforces the principle that public interest in a case cannot replace the legal requirement for proof beyond reasonable doubt.

He indicated that the fight against corruption must operate alongside respect for constitutional protections and due process.

“Even in high-profile public interest prosecutions, convictions cannot rest on speculation, defective charges, or inadmissible hearsay. The law demands rigorous proof beyond reasonable doubt - a standard that remains the essential safeguard of individual liberty,” he added.

Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal has indefinitely adjourned proceedings in the case involving Tamakloe-Attionu after hearing an application by the Attorney-General seeking to suspend the earlier ruling that overturned her conviction and 10-year prison sentence.

See the post below:



JKB/BAI

Tsatsu Tsikata, Kwame Peprah, Hackman Owusu Agyemang pay tribute to Victor Gbeho