A-G seeks stay of Sedina Tamakloe-Attionu’s acquittal pending Supreme Court appeal
The application was filed on Thursday, July 30, 2026, shortly after a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal unanimously quashed Madam Tamakloe-Attionu’s conviction and 10-year prison sentence.
The Attorney-General has moved to stop the immediate effect of the Court of Appeal judgment that cleared former MASLOC Chief Executive Officer Sedina Tamakloe-Attionu of all charges.
Dr Dominic Ayine has filed an urgent application before the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal, asking the court to stay execution of its decision while the State pursues an appeal at the Supreme Court.
The application was filed on Thursday, July 30, 2026, shortly after a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal unanimously quashed Madam Tamakloe-Attionu’s conviction and 10-year prison sentence.
The motion was filed by Principal State Attorney Hilda W. Craig on behalf of the Attorney-General.
The State is asking that the acquittal and discharge be suspended until the Supreme Court finally determines the intended appeal.
In an affidavit supporting the application, Assistant State Attorney Andrew Owusu-Agyemang argued that if the Court of Appeal’s decision is allowed to take effect immediately, the State’s appeal could be rendered ineffective.
The Attorney-General’s office maintains that the appellate court’s decision contains “material errors of law and fact” and has occasioned what it describes as a substantial miscarriage of justice.
Madam Tamakloe-Attionu had been standing trial over her tenure as Chief Executive Officer of the Microfinance and Small Loans Centre.
She was first arraigned before the High Court in February 2019 on several charges, including stealing, causing financial loss to the State, money laundering and procurement-related offences.
She later left Ghana for the United States during the trial, after obtaining permission to travel for medical reasons.
The High Court subsequently continued the case in her absence.
On April 16, 2024, she was convicted in absentia and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment with hard labour.
While she challenged the conviction on appeal, the Attorney-General’s Office also pursued extradition proceedings, which led to her return to Ghana in June 2026.
After her return, she began serving the sentence at the Nsawam Medium Security Female Prison.
That conviction was overturned on July 30, 2026, when the Court of Appeal held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
The appellate court also faulted the trial court’s handling of the case, including what it considered a failure to properly apply the constitutional presumption of innocence.
But the Attorney-General insists the High Court’s conviction was legally sound.
Speaking at the Government Accountability Series on Thursday, Dr Ayine said the State remained convinced that the trial court’s judgment had merit.
“I believe that the judgment of the High Court had merit and that the United States District Court that extradited her to Ghana had a basis for making a determination that she was a proper subject for extradition,” he said.
He added that the State was reviewing the full judgment to settle its grounds of appeal.
“I have a soft copy of the judgment. I'm yet to peruse it and then come to a firm conclusion as to what will be our grounds of appeal,” he stated.
The Attorney-General has already directed state prosecutors to challenge the Court of Appeal’s decision at the Supreme Court.
The stay application has been served on the Registrar of the Court of Appeal’s Criminal Division, Madam Tamakloe-Attionu at the Nsawam Medium Security Female Prison, and the Director-General of the Ghana Prisons Service.
Madam Tamakloe-Attionu had faced 78 charges, including conspiracy to steal, stealing, causing financial loss to the State, money laundering and breaches of procurement laws.
The Court of Appeal’s 94-page judgment identified several legal and evidential weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, including concerns that the burden of proof had wrongly shifted to the accused person.
The Court of Appeal is now expected to decide whether its own judgment should be stayed while the State takes the matter to the Supreme Court.
