Former Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Godfred Yeboah Dame has strongly rejected attempts to hold him or the previous Akufo-Addo administration responsible for the acquittal of Sedina Tamakloe Attionu. Ms. Attionu, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Microfinance and Small Loans Centre (MASLOC), was recently acquitted, prompting Mr. Dame to describe claims by government communicators as "false and devious."
In a statement issued on Friday, Mr. Dame accused communicators of the governing National Democratic Congress (NDC) and "agents and hirelings of the Government" of deliberately trying to shift responsibility. He maintained that official records clearly show neither he nor the Office of the Attorney-General under his tenure failed in handling the appeal process. This acquittal has raised questions about the integrity of the judicial process and the accountability of public officials in Ghana.
This development fits into a broader narrative of political tension surrounding high-profile corruption cases in Ghana. The country has a history of political parties accusing each other of selective justice, especially concerning cases involving former government officials. Public confidence in the justice system often wavers when such acquittals occur, particularly after significant public resources have been spent on prosecutions. The case also highlights the challenges in prosecuting financial crimes involving public funds, which are critical for Ghana's economic stability.
Mr. Dame stated that throughout his tenure as Attorney-General, his office was never served with any notice of appeal allegedly filed by Madam Attionu in 2024. He explained that state attorneys informed the Court of Appeal in April 2026 that they only became aware of the appeal after the court directed both parties to file written submissions. "No notice of an appeal filed by Sedina Attionu in 2024 came to the attention of the Office of Attorney-General in my tenure," he asserted.
He further argued that even if such an appeal had been filed in 2024, it remained inconsequential because the appellant took no further action until after the National Democratic Congress returned to office. "As such, the Republic had no action to take in 2024 regarding the appeal," he maintained. This suggests a potential lapse in the judicial process or a strategic delay by the appellant.
The former Attorney-General also defended his handling of the criminal case after securing Madam Attionu's conviction. He insisted that his office pursued every legal avenue to ensure she returned to Ghana to serve her sentence. He disclosed that extradition proceedings initiated by his office culminated in a ruling by the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on April 9, which upheld the extradition request. The US court ordered that Madam Attionu remain in custody pending the approval of the United States Secretary of State.
Mr. Dame noted that throughout the extradition proceedings, which spanned from July 2024 to April 2026, there was no indication that an appeal had been filed in Ghana. "At no stage during the extradition proceedings was any appeal filed in 2024 mentioned, including in documents submitted by Sedina Attionu herself before the U.S. District Court," he stated. This absence of information during a critical international legal process raises significant questions about the communication and coordination within the legal system.
Mr. Dame explained that lawyers for Madam Attionu obtained leave from the Court of Appeal on February 10, 2026, to file their written submissions. They subsequently filed them on February 12, 2026. He emphasised that by that time, he was no longer serving as Attorney-General. This timeline is crucial for understanding the sequence of events and assigning responsibility.
According to his account, prosecuting state attorneys were surprised when they received the appellant's written submissions on February 16, 2026, having never previously been notified of the appeal. The prosecution later filed its own submissions opposing the appeal and sought leave from the court to submit them out of time on April 9. This indicates a significant procedural irregularity that could have impacted the case's outcome.
The prosecution's submissions highlighted several procedural concerns, including an incomplete record of appeal, omitted prosecution exhibits, and the late notification of the appeal proceedings. The Court of Appeal, presided over by Justice Mensah Datsa, directed that three volumes of the Record of Appeal be provided to the Republic because they had not previously been made available. Following a review of those records, the Republic successfully applied on May 28 to include three additional documents in the appeal record before the matter was adjourned to June 17. Mr. Dame stressed that these proceedings all occurred after he had left office.
On June 17, a differently constituted panel of the Court of Appeal, presided over by Justice Ankamah, heard the appeal and reserved judgment. This judgment eventually resulted in Madam Attionu's acquittal. The change in the panel and the subsequent acquittal raise questions about consistency in judicial decisions and the impact of procedural issues on justice.
Beyond defending his own record, Mr. Dame criticised the current government's handling of criminal prosecutions. He argued that the acquittal has generated understandable public concern given the evidence presented during the original trial. He suggested that the outcome reflected what he described as a broader trend by the current Attorney-General to discontinue criminal cases involving leading members and affiliates of the National Democratic Congress. This accusation points to potential political interference in the justice system.
Mr. Dame compared the handling of the Sedina Attionu case to the long-running Alfred Agbesi Woyome saga. He argued that the justice system must apply the law equally regardless of political affiliation. He further questioned what he described as an apparent contradiction between the government's decision to discontinue cases involving some of its own members while simultaneously pursuing the Operation Recover All Loot (ORAL) initiative and prosecuting individuals associated with the opposition. This highlights concerns about fairness and impartiality in legal proceedings.
The former Attorney-General urged Ghanaians to demand greater accountability in the administration of justice. He insisted that prosecutorial decisions must be guided by the law rather than political considerations. The implications of this acquittal are significant for public trust in Ghana's legal institutions and the fight against corruption. Future developments will likely focus on the current government's response to these accusations and any further legal actions related to the case.