By: Dakyehene Nana Yaw Asante
A careful review of Sedinam v. The Republic raises significant legal questions regarding the attribution of criminal liability in relation to Counts 69, 70, 71, and 74, which concerned alleged inflated invoices for the procurement of 350 vehicles valued at GH¢84 million. The particulars of the offences alleged that the acts occurred between August 2016 and August 2018.
The evidence, however, appears to present a different picture. It is undisputed that Hon. Stephen Amoah (Sticka), upon assuming office, renegotiated the contract prices in 2017 and subsequently authorised payments under the agreement. Those payments continued into 2018, after Sedinam had ceased to serve as Chief Executive Officer of MASLOC.
This raises a fundamental legal question: if the alleged criminality stemmed from the execution and payment of a contract said to lack the requisite ministerial authorisation, on what basis could Sedinam be held solely liable when the actual payments were authorised and effected by her successor?
The issue becomes even more compelling when viewed against the findings of the Court of Appeal, which observed that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Sedinam authorised the payments in question. The Court further noted that if the contract indeed lacked the necessary approval or ministerial authorisation, it would be difficult to justify how PW1 could lawfully renegotiate, implement, and authorise payments under the same contract without attracting similar legal scrutiny.
The Court of Appeal ultimately concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove a contravention of Act 663 and accordingly set aside the convictions and sentences on the relevant counts.
From a layman standpoint, the case raises important concerns about consistency in prosecutorial discretion, equal application of the law, and the evidentiary threshold required to establish criminal responsibility. Where a successor assumes responsibility for a transaction, renegotiates its terms, and authorises payments long after the departure of a predecessor, questions inevitably arise as to whether liability has been properly attributed and whether all relevant actors have been subjected to the same legal standards.
