Member of Parliament for Manhyia South, Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah, has said the Interior Minister’s explanation regarding the whereabouts of former MASLOC Chief Executive Officer Sedina Tamakloe– Attionu has failed to settle public concerns, arguing that it instead raises further questions about transparency and accountability.His comments come amid ongoing public debate over whether Sedina Tamakloe–Attionu is currently serving her sentence in prison custody, following assurances from Interior Minister Muntaka Mubarak that she is under the control of the Ghana Prisons Service while failig to disclose the facility under which she is serving her sentence.Speaking on Joy FM’s Newsight, mr Baffour Awuah said the minister’s clarification, rather than bringing closure to the matter, has deepened uncertainty about the exact location and custodial status of the convicted former MASLOC boss.“When you listen to him, what is clear is that he sought to put finality to the controversy, but he has created more controversy,” he said.The former lawmaker questioned why government has declined to disclose the specific prison facility where Sedina Tamakloe–Attionu is being held, arguing that such information should ordinarily be part of official records confirming a person’s incarceration.He insisted that the absence of publicly accessible documentation verifying her transfer into prison custody undermines confidence in the government’s position.“Where are the records confirming that she’s in prison? Where are the records?” he asked.According to him, the process of incarceration follows established legal procedures, including the issuance of a warrant and the formal transfer of the convicted person from police custody to the Ghana Prisons Service, which should be properly documented.“There are processes that lead to a person being taken into prison custody. There is a warrant which is supposed to evidence the person having been delivered into the custody of the prison service by the police,” he explained.Mr Baffour Awuah further argued that concerns over transparency cannot be dismissed simply on the grounds of security considerations, especially when public accountability is at stake.He also questioned whether Parliament had done enough to exercise its oversight role on the matter, suggesting that a formal inquiry could have compelled the Interior Minister to provide more detailed information.