Private legal practitioner Samson Lardy Anyenini has provided a detailed explanation of the trial, conviction and sentencing of former MASLOC Chief Executive Officer, Sedina Christine Tamakloe-Attionu, following renewed public discussion about the case after her acquittal.

Speaking on JoyNews' The Law on Sunday, August 2, Mr Anyenini explained that Tamakloe-Attionu's trial followed due legal process, including the decision by the High Court to proceed with the case in her absence after she failed to return to Ghana from a court-approved medical trip to the United States.

According to him, Tamakloe-Attionu initially participated in the proceedings after she was arraigned before the court but later applied for permission to travel abroad for medical treatment.

He said the High Court granted her request in July 2021, with the condition that she would return on October 10, 2021, to begin her defence after the prosecution had completed presenting its case.

“By the time she was expected to return, she had travelled to the US and never came back,” Mr Anyenini explained.

He noted that the court did not immediately proceed without her but instead granted several adjournments and issued notices through her lawyers to give her the opportunity to return and continue the trial.

The lawyer said the prosecution had presented seven witnesses, all of whom were cross-examined by Tamakloe-Attionu's 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 in absentia on February 24, 2023.

Trial in absentia was legally permissible

Mr Anyenini explained that Ghana’s legal framework allows an accused person to be tried in their absence where the person has been charged but takes steps that prevent the trial from being completed in their presence.

“The law allows a person who has been charged to be tried in their absence once they make it impossible for the trial to be done in their presence,” he said.

He contrasted Tamakloe-Attionu’s case with that of her co-accused, Daniel Axim, who was the MASLOC Operations Manager and remained physically present throughout the trial.

According to him, Mr Axim personally participated in the proceedings and presented his defence before the court delivered judgment.

Multiple convictions and concurrent sentences

Mr Anyenini also clarified that the widely reported 10-year and five-year prison terms represented the effective sentences after the court considered multiple charges against the accused persons.

The case involved about 78 charges, including stealing, conspiracy to steal, causing financial loss to the state, money laundering, procurement breaches and unauthorised financial commitments.

He explained that Attionu was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment on the main stealing charge, while Daniel Axim received a five-year sentence for his role in the stealing and conspiracy counts.

The former MASLOC CEO also received additional sentences and fines on other counts, including causing financial loss to the state, money laundering and procurement-related offences.

However, Mr Anyenini stressed that the custodial sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

This means Attionu would serve the highest sentence of 10 years rather than adding every individual prison term together, while Axim’s effective prison term remained five years.

“She was not to serve 10 years and then serve the three years, six months or two years. The higher sentence covers the others because they were ordered to run concurrently,” he explained.

Court ordered recovery of state funds

Beyond imprisonment, the court also imposed financial penalties and ordered steps to recover public funds lost through the offences.

Mr Anyenini said the state was empowered to trace and recover assets belonging to the convicts, including properties and bank accounts, as part of efforts to recover monies lost by the Republic.

He added that understanding the legal effect of concurrent sentences was important in interpreting the outcome of criminal cases involving multiple charges.

“The fact that someone has multiple sentences does not necessarily mean they will serve all those sentences one after another. It depends on whether the court orders them to run concurrently or consecutively,” he said.