By Janet A Sesay
Lawyer Roland Wright, representing Yabu Zainab Sheriff has filed an appeal at the High Court in Freetown challenging the judgement handed down by Principal Magistrate Mustapha Braima Jah on 14th April 2026 where Zainab was sentenced to four years imprisonment.
The appeal was heard before Justice Mark Ngegba of the Freetown High Court number 8.
Lawyer Wright made a nineteen ground of appeal in support of his case.
In his submission, Lawyer Wright said the appellant, Zainab Sheriff is dissatisfied with the decision made by Principal Magistrate Mustapha Briama Jah.
In ground one of his appeal, lawyer Wright submitted that the trial Magistrate erred in law and failed to first seek and obtain the express consent of the appellant to be tried summarily on an offence of incitement as required by Section 6 of the Court Amendment Act of 1981, thus making the entire summary trial a nullity.
Lawyer Wright further submitted that the trial Magistrate, Mustapha Briama Jah erred in law and fact holding that there was an incitement case and no witness was brought before the court to testify, adding that nobody was the recipient of the message nor did anyone receive the message for such to constitute incitement.
He further submitted that the trial Magistrate erred in law by failing to appreciate that there was no evidence before the court and that the appellant communicated the video to the public at large and she wrongly treated a private WhatsApp by forwarding it to two contacts as equivalent to public dissemination.
Lawyer Wright further submitted his grounds of appeal that the trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by not taking into consideration which election was referred to in court, adding that whether it is elections in the past or future or who had rigged elections in the past or intended to rig election in the future.
He added that the trial Magistrate also failed to know what type of election was referred to whether it is a presidential, parliamentary or local council election making the information bad for uncertainty.
He further submitted that the trial Magistrate Mustapha Briama Jah failed to take into consideration whether the prosecution had complied with the requirements of the burden and standard of proof but bearing in mind that the prosecution stated in response to their no case submission that they only established a Prima facie case against the appellant which implied that they did not meet the standard of proof required by law to wit beyond reasonable doubt.
He said the trial Magistrate deprived the appellant Zainab Sheriff of her constitutional and legal rights when he failed and refused to hear an application made for a case submission.
He said the trial Magistrate erred in law and deprived the appellant of her constitutional and legal rights to a fair trial.
He said the trial Magistrate misapplied the law on the charge of threatening language under the Public Order Act of 1965 as contained in count three of the information to the effects that he failed to show that there were identifiable individuals who threatened the appellant with intent to put her in fear of death.
Lawyer Wright further submitted that the conviction of the appellant is unsafe and unsatisfactory as it is against the weight of the evidence, adding that the trial Magistrate fundamentally misdirected himself on the law and fact in multiple aspects of the trial as he made no findings that some people were annoyed and so he misapplied authorities wrongly even though the case has no complainant.
Lawyer Wright further submitted that the sentence of four years imprisonment imposed by the trial Magistrate under count one is manifestly excessive, wrong in principles and disproportionate having regard to the facts that the appellant is a first time offender with good character.
He said the offense brought to the court involved no actual violence, no injury to any person or property, no breach of peace and no evidence of anyone having acted upon the alleged incitement.
He said the sentence is grossly disproportionate to the seriousness of the conduct complained of and no legal basis was provided by the Magistrate for arriving at a sentence of four years.
He said the Magistrate failed to consider the fact that the appellant has already spent half of her term imprisonment but still imposed a custodian sentence on her.
He prays that the court allowed the appeal to be heard and the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the Magistrate on 14 April 2026 be set aside.
He also prays that the appellant be acquitted and discharged or been put on bail pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
In response State counsel Ibrahim Tholley said the appeal of Notice of Appeal submitted by the appellant lawyer Wright is fundamentally defective and he failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 3 (1) of the Appeals from the Magistrate Court of 1969.
State counsel Tholley responded that every appeal made before the court shall commenced by notice of appeal in writing and signed by the appellant to the Supreme Court.
He said the appellant appeals against the judgement delivered on 14 April 2026 indicating that the Magistrate convicted her on count one and two and imposed a custodian sentence on her but it is of essence that after a trial in court the outcome of the decision was made.
He said whether the appellant was convicted or acquitted, or whether she is against the conviction, sentence or the offense involved in the case, what matters is that the appellant has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 3(1) of the Court Act.
He said the appellant submitted that Rule 3 (1) of the court Act prescribe the conditions precedent for a valid Notice of Appeal but the same Rule prescribes what a Notice of Appeal shall contain and compliance is not optional.
He said the High Court appellate jurisdiction is invoked by the Notice of Appeal and a document which fails to contain the mandatory particulars prescribed by the Rules is defective and liable to be struck out.
He said Rule 8(2) of the Court Act specifically provides that if an appellant on notice of appeal alleges that the appellant has failed to comply with any of the conditions of appeal, the Supreme Court on the application of the respondent may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
He further stated that the appellant has failed to comply with one of the conditions of appeal prescribed by Rule 3 (1) and the court is empowered to dismiss the appeal.
He ended that the submission made by the appellant has not merely provided an inadequate summary of the judgement but has failed altogether to state its substance.
He said the entire judgement identifies a document but does not disclose the nature, effect or outcome of the decision they appealed against and the notice therefore fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 3 (1) of the Court Act.
State counsel Ibrahim Tholley said pursuant to Rule 8 (2) of the Court Act the state respectfully prays that the appeal be dismissed for non-compliance with the conditions of the appeal.
After listening to both sides, Justice Mark Ngegba said notices will be sent for ruling.