Facts of the case:
In this case, Sedina Christine Tamakloe Attionu, the Ex-CEO of the Microfinance and Small Loans Centre (MASLOC), together with Daniel Axim, was charged before the High Court with 78 counts, including conspiracy to steal, stealing, willfully causing financial loss to the State, causing loss to public property, improper payment of public funds, money laundering, unauthorized commitment resulting in financial obligation, and breaches of the Public Procurement Act.
Although the appellant attended a substantial part of the trial, she travelled abroad for medical treatment after obtaining the court’s permission, but failed to return within the stipulated period. Consequently, the High Court proceeded with the trial in absentia, convicted her on all counts, and sentenced her to various terms of imprisonment ranging from six months to ten years, all to run concurrently. She appealed against both her conviction and sentence on nine grounds.
Legal Issues:
The principal legal issues before the Court of Appeal were:
(a) Whether the charge sheet sufficiently disclosed all the essential ingredients of the offences, particularly the offences of willfully causing financial loss to the State and causing loss to public property.
(b) Whether the trial judge improperly shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution to the appellant.
Principle(s):
The Court reaffirmed several important principles of Ghanaian criminal law: the right of appeal, the precision of criminal charges, the burden of proof, the presumption of innocence, and the hearsay evidence rule.
Holding:
After hearing from both parties, including the Republic, the Court of Appeal unanimously held that several counts on the charge sheet were fundamentally defective because they failed to disclose the essential statutory ingredients of the offences.
The Court further held that the trial judge repeatedly shifted the burden of proof onto the appellant, contrary to the Evidence Act and the constitutional presumption of innocence. It also found that portions of the prosecution’s case relied on inadmissible hearsay evidence.
Since the prosecution failed to establish the predicate offences, the convictions for money laundering equally collapsed.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed all 78 convictions, set aside all sentences imposed by the High Court, and declined to consider the complaint regarding the severity of the sentence because it had become academic.
How do you apply this principle?
This decision is likely to serve as an important precedent in criminal litigation, particularly in financial crime prosecutions.
It may be relied upon where a criminal charge fails to state all the essential ingredients of the offence; where the prosecution attempts to shift the burden of proof to the accused; or where a trial court relies on inadmissible hearsay evidence to secure a conviction.
Be First to Comment