The Sedinam Tamakloe Judgment Without Tears; a break down of Court of Appeal’s ruling by Prof Kwaku Asare

The Court of Appeal held that: • the prosecution’s evidence fell short of proof beyond reasonable doubt; • the trial judge wrongly required Sedinam to prove authority, approval, proper procedure and proper use of funds; • the manner in which an offence is drafted cannot relocate the burden of proof; • an accused person’s absence or failure to testify cannot be used to fill gaps in the prosecution’s evidence; and • the convictions and sentences on all the charges against Sedinam could not stand.

Her arguments were essentially that: • several charges were defectively drafted and did not adequately identify the acts or omissions attributed to her; • the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt; • the trial judge wrongly shifted the burden to her to prove that she had authority, followed the proper procedures or used the money for its intended purposes; • the evidence did not support the individual convictions; and • the sentence was harsh and excessive.

The prosecution alleged, among other things, that: • Obaatanpa Microfinance delivered a GH¢500,000 cash refund directly to Sedinam, which she dishonestly appropriated; • Sedinam and Daniel Axim misappropriated money released for nationwide sensitisation, monitoring, training and financial-literacy programmes; • Sedinam misappropriated GH¢579,800 intended for victims of the Kantamanto market fire; • Sedinam executed a contract for the procurement of 350 vehicles without obtaining the required approval from the Public Procurement Authority; • the prices quoted for those vehicles were substantially higher than the vendor’s alleged retail prices, even though tax waivers had been obtained; • MASLOC paid GH¢93,412 for 200 mobile phones allegedly worth GH¢24,400 on the open market; and • improper ex gratia and leave payments were made to Sedinam and her deputy.