Executive Director of the Centre for Legitimacy and Rule of Law (CLRL), Richard Nii Amarh, has stated that there is nothing unusual about the Court of Appeal’s decision to acquit and discharge the former Chief Executive Officer of the Microfinance and Small Loans Centre (MASLOC), Sedina Tamakloe-Attionu.
The ruling successfully overturned her earlier conviction and 10-year prison sentence.
Speaking on Nyankonton Mu Nsem on Rainbow Radio 87.5FM, Mr Nii Amarh explained that when a case is brought before the Court of Appeal, three outcomes are possible: a person may be set free, their prison sentence may be reduced, or it may be increased.
He emphasized that any of these results can occur for anyone appearing before the appellate court for review.
Addressing public speculation surrounding the ruling, he noted that whilst people will always hold differing opinions, Madam Tamakloe-Attionu’s release was not because her political party is currently in power, but rather because the law simply took its course.
He indicated that information currently available suggests the Attorney-General failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the former MASLOC boss was guilty of the charges brought against her.
”In Ghana or in any competent court of jurisdiction across the globe, criminal trials are proven beyond reasonable doubt before persons standing trial can be convicted. The evidence adduced in criminal trials must be without any doubt. Applying the mathematical formula, in criminal cases the standard of proof must be 100 per cent, whereas in civil matters, the standard of proof is on the preponderance of probability.”
He further observed:”I am yet to get a copy of the full judgment to read; however, from the snippets of information, it shows the Attorney-General failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt any wrongdoing, did not submit any witnesses to support the case, and that is the reason why the Court of Appeal has acquitted and discharged her.”
When asked about the prospective outcome of the Attorney-General’s appeal to the Supreme Court, Mr Nii Amarh suggested that the apex court may well end up affirming the Court of Appeal’s ruling if the appellate court’s reasoning holds firm.
He acknowledged that had Madam Tamakloe-Attionu and her legal team approached the Court of Appeal prior to the exit of the former administration, public perception might have differed.
He noted that whilst the optics may not look ideal, “the law is the law, and the law has been tested in this matter; as such, we cannot say otherwise.”
Concluding his assessment, Mr Nii Amarh maintained that the state’s decision to push the matter further remains legally valid, though the core evidence will not change.
”The decision by the Attorney-General to challenge the outcome is within the law. However, there is no way the Supreme Court can vacate the outcome. I say so because in such appeals, new evidence is not allowed. It would be the same evidence used in determining the matter. If it is true that the Attorney-General failed to present any credible witnesses—hence the reason why she was acquitted—then it is possible for her to get the same outcome of acquittal and discharge.”
By: Rainbowradioonline.com/Ghana
