Franklin Cudjoe, the founding president of IMANI Africa, has questioned why the Ghanaian government has failed to ask the US authorities to extradite the fugitive former CEO of the Microfinance and Small Loan Centre (MASLOC), Sedina Tamacro, to return home and serve the 10-year prison sentence imposed by the court.
Franklin Cudjoe stated this while commenting on the decision of an Accra High Court to dismiss the application of former Chief Executive Officer of the Public Procurement Authority (PPA), Agyenim Boateng Adjei, who sought the return of his passport to facilitate travel abroad.
In April 2024, Adjei was charged with eight counts of using public office to obtain profits and indirectly influencing the procurement process to gain an unfair advantage in the award of procurement contracts. He has pleaded not guilty.
Following the defendant’s plea, the court granted bail and ordered the defendant to submit all relevant passports to the court registry.
In court on Wednesday, July 24, 2024, the Office of Special Counsel (OSP) opposed the request to disclose his passport.
Commenting on the development on his Facebook page, Cudjoe said: “It is sad but the NDC’s Sedinam Tamakloe case provides a valid basis for the court’s ruling.”
“Why is Sedinam Tamakloe fleeing justice after stealing millions of dollars? Can’t the government ask the US authorities to extradite her to Ghana?”
In addition to Sedina Tamamukloe, MASLOC’s operations director Daniel Aksim was also sentenced to five years in prison.
They were jailed by the Financial and Economic Court II of the Accra High Court for causing economic loss to the state.
The pair had pleaded not guilty to a total of 78 charges, including conspiracy to steal, theft, financial loss to the state, loss of public property, improper payment of public funds, corrupt participation resulting in financial obligation to the government, money laundering and violation of the Public Procurement Act.
In her ruling on Tuesday, April 16, presiding judge, Justice Afia Serwa Asare-Botwe, blamed the case for the state placing too much emphasis on violence-related crimes when specialist crimes are far more harmful.
The summary of the judgment is as follows:
On the charges of theft against A1 and conspiracy to commit theft against A1 and A2, A1 is sentenced to 10 years imprisonment under international humanitarian law and A2 is sentenced to 5 years imprisonment under international humanitarian law.
For the charge of intentionally causing economic loss to the State against A1 and the charge of conspiring to intentionally cause economic loss to the State against A1, A1 was sentenced to three years imprisonment, a fine of 3,000 units for two years in default and a fine of 1,000 units for 12 months in default.
For causing damage to public property, A1 faces a sentence of two years imprisonment and a fine of 500 penalty units for violating international humanitarian law, or 22 months imprisonment in default.
making corrupt payments. Six months for both charges.
Unlawful restraint: 6 months
Money laundering against A1 and A2. A1 was given 3 years imprisonment and 2000 fine with 2 years default. A2 was given 2 years imprisonment and 500 fine with 12 months default.
The prosecution is specifically directed to institute confiscation proceedings against A1.