Why the Court of Appeal cleared Sedina Tamakloe – the bare facts

Worse for the prosecution's case, MASLOC's own correspondence undercut the theft claim: the Court noted that MASLOC kept demanding interest payments on the GH¢500,000 investment for years after the refund was supposedly pocketed, with no internal letter ever acknowledging a cash refund had come in and gone missing.

Here, the Court of Appeal found something unusual: under cross-examination, the prosecution's own lead witness — the MASLOC CEO who succeeded Tamakloe — testified that he had personally inquired and concluded the money had, in fact, reached the fire victims through the intended channel.

Payments approved by finance officials — after they checked the paperwork On the ex gratia and leave payments to herself and her deputy, the Court leaned on evidence from MASLOC's own Head of Finance, who testified he personally reviewed and authorised those payments because he found nothing wrong with the supporting documents.