… Calls Appeal Court verdict a ‘travesty of justice,’ alleges political interference, demands Wontumi’s freedom
The New Patriotic Party (NPP) has launched a blistering attack on Ghana’s criminal justice system following Thursday’s dramatic acquittal and discharge of former Microfinance and Small Loans Centre (MASLOC) Chief Executive, Sedinam Christine Tamakloe Attionu, describing the Court of Appeal’s decision as “a travesty of justice” and the clearest evidence yet of what it claims is a politically compromised justice system.
In one of its strongest statements since moving into opposition, the NPP alleged that the judgment was politically orchestrated and forms part of a broader pattern in which individuals linked to the governing National Democratic Congress (NDC) allegedly escape accountability while former officials of the previous administration continue to face prosecution.
The Appeal Court’s ruling overturned a landmark High Court conviction delivered in April 2024, which had found Madam Tamakloe Attionu guilty on multiple counts, including stealing, causing financial loss to the state, money laundering and breaches of the Public Procurement Act. She had been sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.
Her conviction followed a lengthy trial during which the prosecution alleged that nearly GH¢90 million was lost through fraudulent transactions and irregular disbursements at MASLOC between 2013 and 2016.
The case drew national attention after the former MASLOC boss left Ghana while standing trial and was later extradited from the United States, arriving back in the country on June 9, 2026. Barely seven weeks after her return, the Court of Appeal quashed her conviction and ordered her release.
The NPP insists the speed with which the appeal was determined has raised serious questions about the integrity of the judicial process.
Addressing the nation through a statement signed by General Secretary Justin Kodua Frimpong, the party argued that the original High Court judgment painstakingly examined extensive documentary and testimonial evidence before reaching its verdict.
According to the NPP, the trial court detailed fraudulent loan disbursements, missing public funds, procurement violations and financial irregularities that warranted conviction, making Thursday’s decision difficult to reconcile with the evidence previously accepted by the court.
The opposition party contends that the acquittal fits what it describes as an emerging pattern under the current administration, accusing the Attorney-General of systematically terminating criminal prosecutions involving persons perceived to be aligned with the governing party.
It claimed that where prosecutors could not discontinue proceedings through nolle prosequi because a conviction had already been secured, the desired outcome had now allegedly been achieved through the appellate process.
The NPP warned that the latest development risks eroding public confidence in Ghana’s justice system and weakening the country’s anti-corruption architecture.
The party further alleged that the decision undermines years of investigative work undertaken by law enforcement agencies, the resources committed to extraditing the former MASLOC Chief Executive, and the broader national effort to protect public funds.
In one of the most politically charged aspects of its statement, the NPP demanded the immediate acquittal and release of Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, arguing that fairness requires similar treatment if the Appeal Court could overturn the conviction of Madam Tamakloe Attionu.
The party also called on the Attorney-General to publicly account for every criminal case involving persons affiliated with the governing party that has been withdrawn, discontinued or otherwise terminated since January 2025.
Additionally, it urged the Judicial Council and the leadership of the Judiciary to take urgent steps to restore public confidence in the administration of justice.
The NPP says it will explore every lawful avenue, including possible proceedings before the Supreme Court where permissible, to challenge the Appeal Court’s decision and pursue what it describes as accountability for the management of public resources.
