Ex-MASLOC boss Sedina Attionu seeks acquittal to overturn 10-year sentence

Former Chief Executive Officer of the Microfinance and Small Loans Centre (MASLOC), Sedina Christine Tamakloe-Attionu, has filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal seeking to overturn her 2024 conviction and sentence by the Accra High Court.

In a written submission filed on February 10, 2026, and sighted by GhanaWeb, Tamakloe-Attionu’s legal team argued that the charges used to prosecute her were defective and failed to provide sufficient details about the offences she was accused of committing.

The appeal challenges her conviction on multiple charges, including conspiracy to steal, stealing, conspiracy to cause financial loss to the state, causing financial loss to the state, causing loss to public property, improper payment of public funds, unauthorised commitment resulting in financial obligation to government, money laundering, and breach of the Public Procurement Act.

“This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court… delivered on 16th April 2024 and convicting and sentencing the Appellant of the offences of conspiracy to steal, stealing, conspiracy to cause financial loss to the State, causing financial loss to the State, causing loss to public property, improper payment of public funds, unauthorized commitment resulting in financial obligation to Government, money laundering and breach of the Procurement Act,” portions of the filing stated.

According to the defence, several counts on the charge sheet merely repeated the wording of the law without clearly stating the specific acts or omissions that formed the basis of the allegations.

The lawyers argued that this violated Article 19(2)(d) of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantees an accused person the right to be informed in detail of the nature of the offence being charged.

The appeal further cited previous decisions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, which the defence said established that defective particulars of offences could render a conviction unsafe.

Tamakloe-Attionu was first arraigned before the High Court in January 2019 alongside Daniel Axim.

The prosecution alleged that while serving as MASLOC CEO between November 2013 and January 2017, she was involved in the fraudulent disbursement of MASLOC funds.One of the key allegations concerned a GH¢500,000 investment transaction involving Obaatanpa Micro Finance Company Limited.

The prosecution alleged that Tamakloe-Attionu rejected a cheque refund and requested payment in cash, which was later delivered to her.

However, the defence argued that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she dishonestly appropriated the money.

According to the filing, Tamakloe-Attionu denied authoring a key acknowledgment letter relied upon by prosecutors during the trial.

Her lawyers contended that the burden was on the prosecution to prove the authenticity of the document rather than requiring her to disprove it.

The appeal also challenged findings relating to the withdrawal of more than GH¢1.8 million for a nationwide sensitization and monitoring programme.

The defence argued that the prosecution failed to call important witnesses, including beneficiaries of the programme and regional MASLOC officials from the affected areas.

On the vehicle procurement charges, Tamakloe-Attionu’s lawyers maintained that MASLOC had not paid any money under the contract before she left office in January 2017.

According to the filing, the contract was later renegotiated by a new management team, and payments were only made in 2018, more than a year after her departure.

The defence, therefore, argued that she could not be held responsible for any financial loss arising from transactions completed after she had left office.

The appeal also referred to evidence from MASLOC’s Head of Finance regarding ex gratia payments.

According to the defence, the witness testified that the payments were processed through the finance department based on documentation from the Office of the President and the Human Resource Department.

The witness also reportedly stated during cross-examination that he found nothing unusual in the documents before approving the payments.