Former Deputy Attorney General Alfred Tuah-Yeboah has criticised the Court of Appeal’s decision to acquit and discharge former Microfinance and Small Loans Centre Chief Executive Officer Sedina Tamakloe Attionu, arguing that the judgment overlooked key evidence presented during the trial. He contended that the appellate court failed to give adequate weight to the record before reaching its conclusions.
The Court of Appeal on July 30 overturned the High Court’s conviction after finding that the prosecution did not proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt. The ruling quashed the earlier conviction and custodial sentence imposed on the former MASLOC Chief Executive.
Reacting to the judgement, Mr Tuah-Yeboah argued that the appellate court focused on limited aspects of the case while giving insufficient attention to the broader body of evidence considered by the trial court. He explained that a proper assessment of the proceedings require both judgements to be examined together.
According to the former Deputy Attorney General, anyone seeking to understand the case should not rely solely on the appellate court’s findings. He indicated that the trial court’s judgement contained extensive analysis of the evidence, which in his view is central to understanding how the case has been determined at the first instance.
“A person who wants to appreciate the actual evidence in this case will be doing a great disservice by looking at the Court of Appeal judgement alone without regard to the judgement given by the trial court.”
Alfred Tuah-Yeboah
Furthermore, Mr Tuah-Yeboah disputed suggestions that the prosecution failed to establish sufficient evidence against the former MASLOC boss. He argued that the material placed before the High Court provided a strong basis for the trial judge’s decision and should not have been discounted during the appeal.
Turning to the issue of the charges, the legal practitioner reiterated that the alleged defects in the charge sheet should not have been decisive in setting aside the conviction. He observed that the law provides safeguards against overturning judgments solely because of technical deficiencies where the substance of the case has been fully examined.
Additionally, Mr Tuah-Yeboah questioned the appellate court’s conclusion that the evidence on record was inadequate. From his perspective, the documentary and oral evidence presented during the trial created sufficient grounds for the court to require the accused to answer the allegations brought against her.
“There was a mountain of evidence on record. Those pieces of evidence would lead any reasonable court to conclude that Sedina Tamakloe-Attionu has a case to answer.”
Alfred Tuah-Yeboah
He further argued that appellate review should involve a careful examination of the complete trial record before disturbing the findings of the High Court. He emphasised that trial judges have the advantage of hearing witnesses directly and assessing the credibility of the evidence throughout the proceedings.
Meanwhile, the judgement has generated varied legal opinions on the interpretation of the evidence and the appellate court’s reasoning. While some lawyers have welcomed the acquittal, others have questioned whether the decision adequately reflected the material presented during the trial.
Trial Court Findings Deserve Closer Scrutiny, Lawyer Argues
Discussing the significance of the case, Mr Tuah-Yeboah explained that appellate proceedings are intended to review earlier decisions within the context of the full trial record. He observed that evidence, witness testimony and legal arguments examined over the course of the trial remain essential in evaluating the outcome of the appeal.
According to the legal practitioner, the High Court’s judgement contained detailed findings that should continue to inform public discussion on the matter. He indicated that the reasoning adopted by the trial court should not be overlooked simply because the conviction was later overturned.
The former Deputy Attorney General also emphasised that differing judicial opinions form part of Ghana’s legal system and should be viewed within the framework of appellate review. From his perspective, disagreement between courts does not diminish the importance of examining the evidence that informed each decision.
Meanwhile, the Attorney General, Dr Ayine has initiated steps to challenge the Court of Appeal’s ruling before the Supreme Court. The application seeks a stay of execution of the appellate judgement while the State pursues a further appeal against the acquittal and discharge of the former MASLOC Chief Executive.
The Attorney General has emphasised that the High Court’s decision was supported by the evidence presented during the trial and should remain in force pending the outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings. The application signals the State’s intention to seek a final determination on the legal questions raised by the appellate judgement.
Against this backdrop, Mr Tuah-Yeboah expressed confidence that the next stage of the legal process would provide another opportunity for the issues to receive detailed judicial consideration. He suggested that the Supreme Court would have the benefit of reviewing both the trial court’s findings and the reasoning adopted by the Court of Appeal before reaching its own conclusions.
READ ALSO: Snowfall Spinoff The Drop Sets September 8 Premiere on FX
