A newly constituted Court of Appeal panel, comprised of Justices Sophia Rosetta Bernasko Essah, Dr Ernest Owusu-Dapaa, and Aryittey Armah-Tetteh, convened on Friday morning to hear the Attorney-General’s application for a stay of execution in the Sedina Tamakloe Attionu case. However, the panel failed to reach a decision, leaving Ms. Tamakloe Attionu, the former MASLOC Chief Executive Officer, behind bars, and effectively halting the legal proceedings. This unprecedented situation has ignited a storm of questions about procedural fairness and raises serious concerns about the court’s authority.
The panel, established with short notice and without proper notification of the respondent, was tasked with deliberating a crucial matter. The court itself acknowledged that the lawyers had not been properly served, a procedural hurdle that would typically necessitate an adjournment. After approximately ten minutes, the judges returned to the courtroom, announcing that they had been unable to reach a decision, a delay that has become a central point of contention.
Following the failure to reach a verdict, the court indicated it would seek a warrant from the Chief Justice to sit during the legal vacation, a move that could see Ms. Tamakloe Attionu held in custody for weeks longer than initially anticipated, despite having been acquitted and discharged by a different Court of Appeal panel a day earlier. This departure from the established protocol has triggered a wave of legal observers questioning the legitimacy of the proceedings.
The sequence of events has sparked considerable debate about the court’s procedural rules and the balance between ensuring both parties have adequate time to prepare. On Thursday, July 30th, the Court of Appeal unanimously acquitted and discharged Ms. Tamakloe Attionu, a decision that triggered the Attorney-General’s urgent application for a stay of execution pending an appeal. However, the application was not served on prison authorities until after normal court hours, leaving Ms. Tamakloe Attionu’s lawyers without the opportunity to formally respond.
According to a source close to the matter, the defence team only became aware of the application through informal channels and rushed to court on Friday morning, where proceedings were already underway. “Her lawyer was not informed. But he got wind of it, so he was in court before the judges came in,” the source said. The court acknowledged that Ms. Tamakloe Attionu had been served on short notice, a procedural issue that would ordinarily justify an adjournment to allow the respondent to file an affidavit in opposition. However, with Friday marking the final day of the legal year, any adjournment would likely have pushed the matter to October.
In a move some legal observers described as both pragmatic and necessary, Ms. Tamakloe Attionu’s lawyer, Enoch Deegbe, waived his client’s right to file an affidavit in opposition and instead proceeded to argue the application on points of law. Legal practitioners note that procedural rules are designed to ensure both parties have adequate time to prepare. By waiving that right, the defence enabled the court to hear the application before the vacation, but without the benefit of a formal response. This is a significant departure from established practice.
The court subsequently adjourned the matter sine die (without a fixed date) and indicated that it would apply to the Chief Justice for a warrant to sit during the legal vacation to determine the application. Both parties are expected to be notified once a hearing date is fixed. The immediate consequence is that Ms. Tamakloe Attionu, despite having been acquitted and discharged by the Court of Appeal on Thursday, remains in custody at Nsawam Medium Security Prison.
She was extradited from the United States on June 9, 2026, after being convicted in absentia by the High Court on April 16, 2024, on 78 counts, including conspiracy to steal, stealing, causing financial loss to the state, money laundering and procurement-related offences. According to court records, she travelled to the United States in 2021 with the court’s permission to seek medical treatment and subsequently applied for extensions of her stay. The trial court eventually declined to grant further extensions, proceeding with the trial in her absence.
Before her extradition, she spent six months in custody in Nevada. The Court of Appeal panel that acquitted her on Thursday—comprising Justices Emmanuel Ankamah, Emmanuel Senyo Amedahe, and Samuel Obeng-Diawuo—held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Although that judgment ordinarily entitled her to immediate release, she remains in custody pending the outcome of the Attorney-General’s application for a stay of execution.
The Chief Justice is expected to determine the panel’s request to sit during the legal vacation in the coming days. If the stay of execution is granted, Ms. Tamakloe Attionu will remain in custody until the Supreme Court’s determination of the substantive appeal, a process that could take months or longer. If the application is refused, she is expected to be released.”
The proceedings have prompted several legal and procedural questions, including whether a judgment of the Court of Appeal acquitting and discharging an accused person in a criminal matter, being declaratory in nature rather than executory, is capable of being stayed pending an appeal. The Chief Justice is expected to determine the panel’s request to sit during the legal vacation in the coming days. If the stay of execution is granted, Ms. Tamakloe Attionu will remain in custody until the Supreme Court’s determination of the substantive appeal, a process that could take months or longer. If the application is refused, she is expected to be released.”
Watch Related Video
Source: Adom Online
