By Janet A. Sesay
Maurice Jenner Mohamed Seisay and John Mans, both lawyers at Harding Sesay & Partners, have been remanded again after the Prosecution responded to a written no-case submission filed by the Defence Team on their behalf before Magistrate Mustapha Brima Jah of Pademba Road Court No. 1 in Freetown.
The accused persons were previously granted bail on their second appearance but were remanded again following arguments on the Defence’s no-case submission on their behalf.
The Defence Team, led by J.M. Jengo and Melron Nicole Wilson, served the court and the Prosecution with a written no-case submission. The Lead Defence Counsel told the court that he wished to rely entirely on the written submission.
In the submission, the Defence Team raised concerns over documents the Prosecution intends to rely upon, particularly documents allegedly authored by police officers in the course of their duties.
The Defence argued that any document authored by police officers in the course of their duties and intended to be relied upon in the present case must have been authored in 2026.
The Defence further submitted that police statements, undertakings and other documents intended to be tendered as exhibits that are not dated 2026 may have been taken from another case file and may not be connected to the present matter.
The Defence therefore urged the court not to rely on such documents. He described the written address as detailed, noting that a schedule had been attached containing an analysis of the Prosecution’s evidence. According to the Defence, the schedule appeared at the end of the 12-page written address.
In reply, the State Prosecutor, Yusif Isaac Sesay told the court that the Prosecution had received the Defence’s no-case submission only a few minutes before the hearing, describing the situation as being “tried by ambush.”
The Prosecutor, however, said he was prepared to respond to the submission, noting that it was the responsibility of a lawyer to know the case and address the real issues before the court.
He said that, having perused the Defence’s no-case submission, the Prosecution would respond to the arguments raised notwithstanding the short notice with which the submission was served.
The Prosecutor went on to refer the court to Section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2024 (Act No. 8 of 2024), noting that the provision addressed and undermined several of the arguments advanced by the Defence Team.
According to the Prosecutor, Section 113 provides guidance on whether proceedings amount to a continuation of investigations or constitute a judicial investigation.
The Prosecutor further argued that although it may be easy to make assertions, the facts of the case must ultimately speak for themselves.
He told the court that the second accused, John Mans, was not only a legal practitioner but also a cousin of the complainant.
According to the Prosecutor, the complainant met the accused persons and Samuel Harding in connection with the proposed delivery of three vehicles.
He said the complainant relied on his relationship with the second accused and that a combination of events subsequently led to the signing of an agreement at Harding Sesay & Partners, which, according to the Prosecutor, prepared the agreement.
He argued that the circumstances surrounding the preparation and signing of the agreement raised questions of conflict of interest and an alleged intention to defraud the complainant.
The Prosecutor told the court that the first accused signed the agreement on behalf of the investor, while the second accused signed on behalf of the complainant.
He urged the court to consider those circumstances, arguing that they raised substantial issues for the court to examine in determining whether the accused had a case to answer.
The Prosecutor further referred the court to Section 113(7) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2024, which the prosecutor described as the “killer pass.”
He argued that had the defence properly considered Section 113, most of the arguments contained in the no-case submission would have been avoided.
The Prosecutor further submitted that where, upon consideration of the evidence, the court is satisfied that it sufficiently establishes the commission of an offence other than the offence with which the defendant is charged; the court shall inform the defendant accordingly and record its finding.
He therefore urged the court to dismiss the Defence’s written no-case submission.
Thirty-four-year-old Maurice Jenner Mohamed Seisay and 35-year-old John Mans are standing trial before Magistrate Mustapha Brima Jah on two counts of conspiracy to defraud and obtaining property by false pretences, contrary to Section 32(1) of the Larceny Act, 1916.
According to the particulars of the offence, between November 1 and 30, 2023, at Harding Sesay & Partners Law Firm, No. 49 Dundas Street, Western Area, Freetown, the accused allegedly conspired with other persons unknown with intent to defraud.
The second count alleges that the accused obtained three Toyota 4Runner vehicles from Bockarie Conteh, valued at US$ 114, 000 under the pretext that payment for the vehicles would be made within 30 working days, knowing the representation to be false.
When the charges were read and explained to the accused, no plea was taken as the matter remains at the committal proceedings stage.
Magistrate Jah adjourned the matter to August 27, 2026, for further proceedings. Both accused were remanded in custody pending the next hearing.