A newly constituted Court of Appeal panel that sat on an emergency basis Friday morning to hear the Attorney-General's application for a stay of execution in the Sedina Tamakloe Attionu case has failed to reach a decision, leaving the former MASLOC Chief Executive Officer behind bars as the courts head into a two-month vacation.

The panel, made up of Justices Sophia Rosetta Bernasko Essah (presiding), Dr Ernest Owusu-Dapaa and Aryittey Armah-Tetteh, was convened at extremely short notice, with the court itself acknowledging that the respondent's lawyers had not been properly served.

Yet remarkably, the judges retired to write their judgment around 10:20 am, only to return nearly two hours later to announce they could not agree on a ruling.

The court has now indicated it will seek a warrant from the Chief Justice to sit during the legal vacation, a move that could leave Ms Tamakloe Attionu at Nsawam Prison for weeks longer, despite her acquittal and discharge by a previous panel just a day earlier.

A rushed application, a short-served respondent

The timeline of events has raised serious questions about procedural fairness.

On Thursday, July 30, the Court of Appeal delivered its unanimous judgment acquitting and discharging Ms Tamakloe Attionu. Hours later, the Attorney-General's office filed an urgent application for a stay of execution pending an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The application was served on the prison authorities in the evening, well after normal court hours, but critically, Ms Tamakloe Attionu's lawyers were not informed.

Her legal team only learned of the application through informal channels and made their way to court Friday morning to find proceedings already being set in motion.

"Her lawyer was not informed. But he got wind of it, so he was in court before the judges came in," a source close to the matter said.

The court acknowledged that Ms Tamakloe Attionu had been short-served, a fundamental breach of procedural rules that ordinarily would have warranted an adjournment to allow the respondent to file an affidavit in opposition.

However, with Friday being the last day of the legal year, an adjournment would have pushed the matter to October at the earliest.

Lawyer waives right to proceed

In a move that legal observers say reflects both desperation and duty, Ms Tamakloe Attionu's lawyer, Mr Enoch Deegbe, waived his right to file an affidavit and proceeded to argue on points of law.

This was a significant concession. The rules of procedure exist to ensure both parties have adequate time to prepare and respond. By waiving that right, Mr Deegbe ensured the case could be heard before the vacation, but at the cost of his client's full opportunity to be heard.

"What happened on Friday is deeply concerning from a fairness perspective," said a private legal practitioner who spoke on condition of anonymity.

 "A stay of execution application that could keep someone in prison — someone who has already been acquitted — was heard without giving the respondent's lawyers proper notice, and with the respondent herself not in a position to file any response. That's not how the justice system should work."

Judges retire — but cannot decide

After hearing submissions from both sides, the panel retired to deliberate at around 10:20 am.

For nearly two hours, the judges were in chambers. When they returned, the court announced it had been unable to reach a decision.

"I can't believe it," one court observer was overheard saying. "They sat all this time and couldn't decide?"

The panel then adjourned the matter sine die — indefinitely — and indicated it would apply to the Chief Justice for a warrant to sit during the legal vacation to deliver a ruling. Both parties will be served with hearing notices when a date is fixed.

The consequences of delay

The practical effect of Friday's non-decision is that Ms Tamakloe Attionu, who was acquitted and discharged by a unanimous Court of Appeal on Thursday, remains incarcerated at Nsawam Medium Security Female Prison.

She was extradited from the United States on June 9, 2026, after being convicted in absentia by the High Court on April 16, 2024, on 78 counts including conspiracy to steal, stealing, causing financial loss to the state, money laundering and procurement-related offences.

She had travelled to the US in 2021 with the court's permission for medical treatment and requested what she referred to as necessary extensions, which at one point the court refused to accommodate and ruled in her absence. She spent 6 months in jail in Nevada before her extradition.

The appellate court that acquitted her on Thursday — Justices Emmanuel Ankamah, Emmanuel Senyo Amedahe and Samuel Obeng-Diawuo — found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

That acquittal, which should have meant immediate release, has now been effectively frozen by the Attorney-General's application, despite no ruling having been granted.

Unanswered questions

The proceedings raise difficult questions about the administration of justice in Ghana:

· How can a court hear a stay application on an emergency basis when the respondent has not been properly served?

· Is it fair for a respondent to be effectively forced to waive their procedural rights simply because the legal year is ending?

· Why did a panel of three judges - after nearly two hours of deliberation - fail to reach a decision, leaving the matter unresolved?

· Will a warrant during vacation delay matters even further, keeping an acquitted person in custody?

 . Since the stay of execution has not yet been granted, is it legal to keep a person who has been acquitted and discharged by a court of competent jurisdiction in jail until the court deems it fit to render judgment?

What the law says

Under Order 79 Rule 1 of C.I. 47, the Chief Justice may appoint any day, including days during vacation, for the hearing of matters. The court has indicated it will apply for such a warrant.

However, legal experts note that the granting of a stay of execution pending appeal is not automatic. The test is well-established: the applicant must demonstrate a real likelihood of success on appeal and that irreparable harm would occur if the stay is not granted. The respondent, in turn, has a right to be heard.

Whether those standards were properly met in Friday's proceedings - where the respondent was short-served and unable to file an affidavit - remains an open question.

The issue also hovers about whether a judgment of a Court of Appeal in a criminal matter acquitting and discharging the accused can be subjected to a stay of execution, seeing that it is a declaratory judgment and not an executory order.

Looking ahead

The Chief Justice is expected to rule on the panel's request for a warrant to sit during vacation in the coming days. If granted, the panel will reconvene to deliver its ruling on the stay application. If the stay is granted, Ms Tamakloe Attionu will remain in custody pending the Supreme Court's determination of the substantive appeal — a process that could take months or years.

If the stay is refused, she will be released immediately.

For now, Ms Tamakloe Attionu, who spent weeks at the BNI cells and Police Hospital under guard, and has already spent more than a month at Nsawam Prison and was acquitted just a day ago, remains behind bars, caught in a procedural limbo that has left many questioning whether justice is truly being served.