Private legal practitioner and host of JoyNews’ Newsfile, Samson Lardy Anyenini, has dismissed suggestions that changes in the composition of the Court of Appeal panel that handled the appeal involving former MASLOC Chief Executive Officer, Sedina Christine Tamakloe-Attionu, were an indication of judicial interference.

According to him, such changes are a normal administrative practice within the Court of Appeal and should not be interpreted as an attempt to influence the outcome of cases.

Speaking on JoyNews’ The Law on Sunday, August 2, Mr Lardy Anyenini explained that the Court of Appeal sits in panels of three judges and that different panels may handle various stages of the same case depending on the court’s roster and administrative arrangements.

He noted that when Sedina Tamakloe-Attionu’s appeal first came before the Court of Appeal in February 2026, a panel dealt with preliminary and procedural matters. However, when the substantive appeal was ready for hearing and judgment, a different panel had been assigned to the case.

“It is the standard established practice in the Court of Appeal for different panels to sit on a single case across various stages of the court proceedings,” he said.

Mr Lardy Anyenini explained that interlocutory applications, procedural motions and preliminary matters are assigned to available panels based on the court’s judicial roster, a system designed to ensure efficient case management.

He said litigants could appear before one panel when seeking interim reliefs such as a stay of execution, an injunction, or bail pending appeal, and later appear before another panel when the substantive matter is heard.

According to him, the rotation of panels is an administrative mechanism aimed at distributing the workload of the appellate courts and preventing delays in the justice delivery system.

He stressed that the panel that hears the substantive appeal, considers all written submissions and listens to oral arguments is the same panel that reserves the case for judgment and eventually delivers the decision.

Using the Sedina Tamakloe-Attionu case as an example, he explained that earlier proceedings before the Court of Appeal involved procedural issues, including applications for extensions of time and confirmation that both parties had filed the required documents.

“Once the court is satisfied that all filings have been completed, the panel adjourns the matter for judgment and subsequently delivers its decision,” he said.

He added that decisions made by earlier panels on interlocutory applications remain valid and form part of the record available to the final panel hearing the substantive appeal.

Mr Lardy Anyenini maintained that changes in the composition of Court of Appeal panels are guided by administrative procedures and should not be misconstrued as attempts to influence judicial outcomes.

“Judicial assignments follow neutral roster mechanisms, safeguarding judicial independence and systemic transparency,” he said.

He described the explanation as “Law 101” and urged the public to develop a better understanding of judicial administrative processes before attributing ulterior motives to routine changes in panel composition.