Ghana High Court Convicts MASLOC Chief Sedina Tamakloe-Attionu in Absentia

• Sedina Christine Tamakloe-Attionu's High Court conviction and 10-year imprisonment on a main stealing charge were overturned by the Court of Appeal on July 30, 2026, which acquitted and discharged her on all charges.
• The High Court proceeded with her trial in absentia after she failed to return from a medical trip to the United States.
• Ghana's legal framework allows for an accused person to be tried in their absence if they prevent the trial from being completed in their presence.
• Tamakloe-Attionu's additional sentences and fines on other counts, including causing financial loss to the state and money laundering, were also set aside by the Court of Appeal.
• The Attorney-General has filed a notice of appeal at the Supreme Court challenging the Court of Appeal's decision.

Ghana's legal framework allows for an accused person to be tried in their absence if they have been charged but take steps that prevent the trial from being completed in their presence.

Sedina Christine Tamakloe-Attionu's trial was marked by a series of events that led to her initial conviction and sentencing. The former MASLOC Chief Executive Officer had initially participated in the proceedings, but after being granted permission for a medical trip to the United States, she failed to return as expected. Despite several adjournments and notices issued through her lawyers, Tamakloe-Attionu never returned to Ghana, prompting the High Court to proceed with the trial in absentia. The prosecution presented seven witnesses, all of whom were cross-examined by her legal team before the matter reached the stage where she was expected to open her defence. However, after several unsuccessful attempts to secure her return, the court eventually ordered that the trial should proceed without her on February 24, 2023. Her High Court conviction and 10-year sentence were subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeal on July 30, 2026, which acquitted and discharged her on all charges.

Ghana's legal framework allows for an accused person to be tried in their absence if they have been charged but take steps that prevent the trial from being completed in their presence. This provision was applied in Tamakloe-Attionu's case, where she had made it impossible for the trial to be done in her presence. In contrast, her co-accused, Daniel Axim, remained physically present throughout the trial and personally participated in the proceedings. The law permits such a scenario, and the High Court's decision to try Tamakloe-Attionu in absentia sets a precedent for future cases. The Court of Appeal, in overturning her conviction, also affirmed that there is no constitutional or statutory bar preventing a person convicted in absentia from exercising their right of appeal.

The overturning of Sedina Christine Tamakloe-Attionu's conviction and sentence by the Court of Appeal has significant implications for lawyers handling similar cases. The High Court's decision to try her in absentia set a precedent that may be applied in future cases, where the accused person has made it impossible for the trial to be completed in their presence. However, the Court of Appeal's ruling emphasizes the importance of the burden of proof remaining with the prosecution and the right to appeal even for those tried in absentia. Lawyers should note that this ruling could impact clients facing similar charges and should be aware of the potential implications for their defence strategies. The Attorney-General has since filed a notice of appeal at the Supreme Court, challenging the Court of Appeal's judgment.

Lawyers should note that the High Court's decision to try Sedina Christine Tamakloe-Attionu in absentia sets a precedent for future cases, and they should be aware of the potential implications for clients facing similar charges.

Source: Original reporting via Samson Lardy Anyenini on JoyNews' The Law