The Defendant, Zainab Sheriff on Wednesday, 4th March 2026 made another appearance in court and two separate Representations from defense Counsels were made on her behalf.
The first set of representatives include: Lawyer Roland Wright, Basita Michael, A. Marrah, M. Sesay, M. Conteh, S. Bai Sesay, C. Kamara and M. Maddie, while the other set of legal representatives included: Joseph Fitzgerald Kamara, Ady Macaulay and Saidu Kamara on behalf of the All People’s Congress (APC) party.
The Zainab Sheriff is before the court on two count charges of incitement contrary to law and threatening language contrary to Section 30(1) of the Public Ordered Act of 1965.
The indictment states that the Defendant on Saturday, 31st January, 2026 at the Brima Attouga Mini Stadium in Freetown, allegedly made inciting statements encouraging the killing of individuals accused of rigging elections.
The indictment further states that the defendant Zainab sheriff made statements to the effects that
“Clearly elections don-don; and you nor get money than me, you rouge election and cheat a whole eight million people dem and kill people dem, send dem go jail, we go send message say nobody nor go cheat entire eight million people and proudly go free.”
Madam Sheriff had earlier pleaded not guilty to the offenses when the charges were read and explained to her.
During proceedings, the Police Witness, DPC 14164 Sheku Turay, attached to the Cyber Crime Syndicate at the CID Headquarters, testified before Magistrate Mustapha Briama Jah at the Pademba Road Court No. 1.
Led in evidence by State Counsels, Yusuf Isaac Sesay and N.B.S. Taylor Kamara, DPC Turay identified the defendant and outlined his duties, which he said includes monitoring the cyberspace and investigating cyber offences.
He told the court that on 31st January, 2026 while conducting routine cyber surveillance at the CID Headquarters, officers discovered a video allegedly involving the defendant.
He said the video was published on the Born2blog Facebook page and Liberty TV Online, and it attracted police attention.
He added that the video was downloaded by members of the cybercrime team on duty and it was transferred to a hard drive.
He said a file with Serial No. 959/2026 was subsequently opened for further investigations.
Witness Turay in his testimony, continued that on 1st February, 2026 the matter involving the alleged incitement and related offences was assigned to him for investigation and that the file handed over to him contained a pen drive and screenshots of the said video.
The witness said attempts were made on 2nd February, 2026 by Assistant Commissioner of Police Alieu Jalloh and ASP Kabba Lavali to contact the defendant via telephone and WhatsApp, but she was unreachable, adding that a team of detectives later visited her Cockle Bay residence, only to be informed by neighbours that she had vacated the premises.
The police witness further testified that on 3rd February, 2026 a request was sent to the cyber laboratory for forensic analysis of the video and this Exhibit was tendered in court and marked Exhibit A.
DPC Turay went on that on the same day, he secured a warrant of arrest from the Principal Magistrate, which was duly registered at the CID Headquarters and a proclamation declaring the defendant wanted was issued on 4th February, 2026 and this document was also tendered in court and marked as Exhibit B.
Turay furthered in his testimony that on 20th February, 2026, intelligence led police officers to the LOR Gym Facility on Main Goderich Road at Juba and a team led by Detective Inspector A.S. Kamara, including female officers went to the LOR gym and arrested the defendant on the strength of the warrant.
According to the witness, the defendant stated she had not received any prior invitation and believed the wanted notice was a prank.
He said the defendant was escorted to the Lumley Police Station and later transferred to the CID Headquarters. He said her iPhone 16 Pro Max was retrieved and sent for forensic examination.
DPC Turay stated that in the presence of the Defendant’s lawyers, led by R.N. Kondeh, she was interviewed in compliance with the Judges’ Rules and during the interview conducted on 20th and 21st February, 2026, the video on the pen drive was played several times, and she admitted being the speaker. The statement of the defendant was tendered as Exhibit F1–27.
The witness continued that on the 23rd February, 2026 the cyber analysis report was received from the cyber unit and it was produced before the court. The witness said the defendant was later formally charged with the offenses of incitement and threatening language.
The witness was about to tender the pen drive when the Lead Defense Counsel Wright objected to the admissibility of the pen drive, arguing that the witness was not competent to tender downloaded material and that the original publisher should be called.
The State Prosecutor Yusuf Isaac Sesay in reply relied on Section 92(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2024, arguing that the investigator who handled the case was competent to tender the evidence regardless of whether it was downloaded. He maintained that issues of authenticity could be addressed during cross-examination.
Magistrate Mustapha Briama Jah ruled that the matter should proceed expeditiously and held that the video was admissible in law. He therefore ordered that the pen drive be tendered. After that ruling, the State Prosecutor closed the testimony of the police witness.
During cross-examination by the Lead Defense Counsel Roland Wright, witness Turay confirmed that the video was downloaded from the Born2blog Facebook page by the staff of the Cyber Crime Unit and also confirmed that the Inspector General of Police is the complainant in the matter and that no other individual lodged a complaint.
When questioned whether anyone mentioned in the video had made a complaint, he responded that no such complaint was received, but the witness however admitted that names, including Foday Sankoh, were mentioned in the video but could not recall any others.
At the end of the cross-examination, a fresh application for bail was made by Counsel Roland Wright reaffirming that the defendant, as a young woman has endured personal trauma since she was arrested and under detention, but has remained resilient. He told the court that the defendant as a model has represented Sierra Leone internationally, received invitations from countries such as South Africa and Nigeria to work in their movie industries but decided to stay home in her country to support women and girls which she has been doing across the country. He argued that as a married woman whose husband operates a substantial business locally, she poses no flight risk and would not interfere with witnesses.
Lawyer Wright further stated that the defendant is facing charges for expressing sentiments in support of democracy and protecting the electoral process, and also informed the court that the defendant is currently unwell and that she is a mother of two young girls.
In response, the State Prosecutor Yusuf Isaac Sesay submitted that bail is at the discretion of the court and argued that most of the defence’s submissions did not constitute valid grounds for granting bail. He cited Paragraph 203 of Archibald’s Criminal Practice, stating that the nature of the offence is serious in law.
Defence Counsel Wright in his second bite countered that the prosecution cannot oppose bail without filing a fresh affidavit, arguing that the previous affidavit had expired and that each fresh application for bail requires a new affidavit in opposition.
The matter was adjourned to the 11th March, 2026 for ruling on the bail application.
