The former Chief Executive Office Ghana National Petroleum Commission, (GNPC), Alex Mould and Gavivina Tamakloe are in hot waters after they signed a Ghs5Million Surety for former CEO of Microfinance and Small Loans Centre (MASLOC) Sedinam Attionu Tamakloe who has allegedly absconded.
The court has ordered the duo to produce the ‘absconded’ Sedinam Tamakloe in 26 days else face the full rigors of the law.
Madam Sedina Tamakloe has since November last year failed to appear in court for the trial to continue and the sureties have been ordered to produce her.
Madam Tamakloe is being tried together with Daniel Azim, a former Operations Manager of MASLOC for allegedly willfully causing financial loss to the State, facing a total of 78 counts of criminal offences for which they pleaded not guilty.
While Mr. Azim has been appearing in Court, Madam Tamakloe has not appeared in Court since October last year, a situation the Prosecution has described as an attempt to evade justice with her sureties Alex Mould and Gavivina Tamakloe to answer.
What will happen to Alex Mould, Gavivina?
Checks by MyNewsGh.com from legal authorities indicate should Madam Sedina Tamakloe fail to show up by the extra time offered the court, her sureties will face the law.
Lawyers consulted say the two cannot be jailed because execution of a bail is a contract, hence will he a civil case not a criminal case.
The state will therefore require Mr. Alex Mould and Gavivina Tamakloe to pay the full Ghs5Million Bail Bond they signed on to.
Should the duo fail to pay up, court processes could be initiated for the state to seize their properties in the value of the Bail Bond of Ghs5Million.
The Judge sitting on the case at the Financial and Economic division of the Accra High Court, Justice Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe gave the two Sureties 26 more days to produce Sedina.
Lawyers for Madam Sedina who earlier said she is seeking medical attention abroad now say they cannot find their client.
Her Ladyship, Afia Serwaa Asare-Botwe, Presiding, noted in court two applications are pending on the matter; an application for Forfeiture of Recognizance filed on February 14, 2022, and to be served on the two sureties, as well as an application for Trial in Absentia.
The Court reasoned that before a trial in absentia is initiated, the accused person must have by their action made it impossible for them to be tried in their presence. This she said was based on the constitutional imperative for accused persons to be tried in their presence.