Investigative journalist Manasseh Azure Awuni says he would trust the Court of Appeal's judgment over public opinion in the Sedina Tamakloe case, saying that the ruling exposes weaknesses in the prosecution rather than proving that the court got it wrong.

Speaking on JoyNews' Newsfile on Saturday, August 1, Mr Awuni said reading the judgment had convinced him that greater attention should be paid to the quality of state prosecutions in corruption-related cases.

"I generally, if I have to honestly choose between the court and any other sentiment, I think I would tilt in favour of the court, having read the judgment," he said.

According to him, the acquittal should prompt anti-corruption advocates to scrutinise how prosecutors handle cases instead of relying solely on allegations made at press conferences.

"That should tell us that those of us in the accountability space should begin to pay more attention to the state prosecution or state prosecutors," he said.

To support his argument, Mr Awuni cited his experience in the prosecution of a case linked to his investigative documentary 'Contracts for Sale.'

He said many Ghanaians would have accused the judge of corruption if the case had been dismissed, without knowing what had happened during the trial.

"I can give you an example. Every Ghanaian who watched Contracts for Sale would have said the judge was corrupt if that case had been thrown out," he said.

"But I was part of the trial, and it emerged that the documentary, which the court even admitted into evidence, was not provided by the Office of the Special Prosecutor until I drew attention to it."

He explained that members of the public often know the facts surrounding a case but are unaware of what takes place in court.

"The average person out there who knows the facts doesn't know what happens in the courtroom."

Mr Awuni urged the public to demand thorough investigations and stronger prosecution instead of focusing only on accusations made before trial.

"We should begin to pay more attention beyond the press conference, where we are told that this person has done this or that. Let us put the heat on the prosecutors and ensure that they do a thorough job."

He said that some of the shortcomings identified by the Court of Appeal could have been avoided with more diligent investigations.

Giving an example, he said investigators could have simply sought confirmation from the Public Procurement Authority (PPA) over whether MASLOC had obtained approval for a procurement or not.

"If you had just written to the PPA and asked whether MASLOC sought approval, and the PPA responded that no approval was given, all the other things would have been cured because, sometimes, even if something appears so clear, you still need to connect the dots."

According to him, prosecutors appeared to rely on the court to fill gaps in their case rather than presenting complete evidence.

"That is what it seems. Largely, the prosecution relied on the court to do that."

Mr Awuni said reading the judgment showed that some of the issues that led to the acquittal were relatively minor but proved decisive because they affected the prosecution's ability to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt.

"If you read the judgment, these were very, very tiny things. It hurts that somebody will walk free when, in some of the instances, it was so clear that something else could have happened in the Court of Appeal in terms of the outcome."