Former CEO of MASLOC, Sedinam Tamakloe, has been sentenced to 10 years in prison with hard labor, while the former Chief Operating Officer of MASLOC, Daniel Axim, has been jailed for five years with hard labor. They were both found guilty on 78 counts of causing financial loss to the state, stealing, conspiracy to steal, money laundering, and causing loss to public property, in contravention of public procurement law.
The two have been on trial since 2019. The state called six witnesses in all, while the first accused person, Sedina Tamakloe, was tried in absentia as she absconded after obtaining permission from the court to seek a medical checkup outside the country. The second accused person, however, testified in person but did not call any witnesses.
The offences for which the accused persons have been found guilty revolve around the misappropriation of funds meant for MASLOC activities between 2013 and 2016.
In one instance, the convicts were found to have withdrawn GH₵500,000 as a loan for Obaatampa Savings and Loans company but demanded a refund of the amount when the financial institution refused to yield a 24% percentage on the matter.
Evidence presented by the state suggested that although there was evidence of the said refund to the convicts, the same was not reflected in the accounts and books of the complainant institution, MASLOC.
The duo was also found guilty of appropriating over 1.7 million Ghana cedis meant for a sensitization exercise. According to the facts of the case, MASLOC was expected to provide 20 Ghana cedis each for 85,300 beneficiaries amounting to 1.7 million cedis. However, only 1,300 cedis were spent for the intended purpose, with the rest being misappropriated by the convicts.
Similarly, only 579,800 out of 1.4 million cedis was disbursed to the victims of an inferno at Kantamanso, with the two accused persons appropriating the remainder.
The case also involved the purchase of vehicles for MASLOC, where the monies disbursed for the said purchase were more than the market price of the vehicles at the time, and a similar situation occurred with the purchase of Samsung phones.
The evidence suggested that the amounts were higher than the prevailing market price at the time, even though they were bought in bulk.
