Private legal practitioner Gary Nimako has raised concerns about aspects of the Court of Appeal's decision to overturn a criminal conviction of the former Chief Executive of the Microfinance and Small Loans Centre (MASLOC), Sedina Tamakloe-Attionu, arguing that while some parts of the judgment are legally sound, others appear to impose an unusually high burden on prosecutors.

Speaking during a discussion on JoyNews’ Newsfile programme on Saturday, August 1, Mr Nimako explained that every criminal trial begins with investigations conducted by law enforcement agencies before a case is brought before the courts.

He said investigators typically take statements from persons connected to a case and determine whether the available evidence is sufficient to support criminal charges.

If prosecutors believe they have established a prima facie case, the matter proceeds to trial.

Mr Nimako stressed that under Ghana's criminal justice system, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution throughout the trial.

According to him, prosecutors must prove the guilt of an accused person beyond reasonable doubt, although the evidential burden may shift temporarily during proceedings where an accused person is required to explain certain matters.

"The legal burden remains with the prosecution throughout the trial," he said.

Commenting on the case under discussion, Nimako noted that the trial court had convicted the accused persons on all counts before an appeal was lodged.

He expressed concern over reports that, although the appeal was filed within the prescribed period, it was allegedly not served on the Attorney-General, describing the development as unusual.

Mr Nimako, however, clarified that filing an appeal and having it heard are separate legal processes.

"The fact that an appeal has been filed does not mean it has been set down for hearing. Service of the appeal is ordinarily handled through the court registry," he explained.

He further observed that while the appeal was reportedly filed on time, it was not prosecuted within the required period, and the appellants later sought leave to continue the appeal.

Having reviewed the Court of Appeal's judgment, Nimako said he agreed with some aspects of the decision but believed other portions imposed a higher evidential threshold on prosecutors than is ordinarily required under criminal law.

He also questioned the remedy granted by the appellate court.

Rather than quashing the conviction outright, Nimako said the Court of Appeal could have ordered a trial de novo—a fresh trial before the High Court—particularly if it found defects in the charges.

According to him, such an order would have allowed prosecutors to correct any procedural defects and present the case afresh.

Despite his reservations, Nimako noted that the appellate court had exercised its judicial discretion.