By Hassanatu I. Conteh
At her seventh appearance before Principal Magistrate Brima Jah on Monday, 31st March, 2026, Defendant Madam Yeabu Zainab Sheriff in the matter between her and the State testified without taking oath that her statement in the alleged video was meant to defend democracy.
Her testimony came after the presiding Principal Magistrate Brima Jah dismissed the no case submission made by her Lead Defense Counsel at the last sitting.
In his ruling, Magistrate Jah recalled that the Defendant stands charged with two counts offences namely, incitement contrary to law and threatening language contrary to Section 3(1) of the Public Order Act 1965-Act No. 46 of 1965.
The Magistrate went on to note that he was discharging the defence’s submission based on the testimonies proffered by two of the Prosecution Witnesses who were also cross-examined by the Defence and their testimonies were corroborated by exhibits.
He maintained that at the close of the Prosecution’s case, the learned Defence Counsel, R.V.S. Hingston Esq. submitted a “no case” to answer on behalf of the Defendant.
Magistrate Jah also recalled that the Defence Counsel submitted that the charges were proffered on the face of the information and did not amount to valid charges and therefore sought that they be dismissed.
He also recalled that the Defence submitted the invalidity of Count 1 both in form and in substance and that this invalidity is also confirmed by the uncertainty of its form as it was based on the ground that the statement of the case is incomplete as it merely made incitement contrary to law; unlike conspiracy which can be charged contrary to law.
The Magistrate also stated that the Defence submitted that the form of the charge is monstrous and that the charge should read incitement to commit a stated offence, such as incitement to commit murder, and that the Defence referred to Archibold on Page 148(6) and specifically to 469 which gives a precise form that the charge should have taken. He also recalled that the Defence also referred to the case of Regina vs. Michael Irom Smith (2004) Paragraph 10, and submitted that the statement ought to show who was incited and that in the absence of that information, pointing out that Count 1 is incomplete of the offence charged.
Magistrate Jah furthered that the Defence had also submitted that the particulars of the offence are vague and uncertain as it did not indicate whether the alleged statement referred to the past or future elections, nor did it identify any specific victim or persons incited; and that the Defence on that basis submitted that the uncertainty renders the charge a nullity and deprives the court of jurisdiction.
The presiding Magistrate also read out that the Defence had further submitted on Count 2 that is defective since it failed to identify the person or persons to whom the alleged statement were directed.
To support that submission, the Magistrate indicated that the Defence referenced the case of Republic vs. Mohamed Ibrahim (2005) and advanced that in the absence of identifying a specific person(s) in the charge, Count 2 also, therefore failed.
The Magistrate stated that on the basis of these points of law, the Defence had urged the court to uphold the “no case” submission and to acquit and discharge the Defendant.
On the opposition submission of the Prosecution, the Magistrate recounted, the State Counsel, V.I. Sesay submitted that the Defence’s submission for a no case to answer is good law only to some extent.
Firstly, the Magistrate went on recounting, the Prosecution dismissed the submissions on the issues of form and uncertainty, pointing out that one is based on the evidence presented to the court.
He said the Prosecution had submitted that the charges were properly framed in accordance with the laws of the State, recalling that the Prosecution has referenced Section 47(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedures Act (CPA) No. 8 of 2004 and submitted that the Defence failed to show any breach of the law.
He went on that the Prosecution had submitted that the Defence ought to have justified how the charges were not properly framed in accordance with the Act.
The Principal Magistrate furthered that the Prosecution had referred to the First Schedule of the CPA 2004 and had submitted that the charges are well framed in accordance with the rules provided in the CPA of 2004.
He said the Prosecution also referred to the Court of Appeal decision in Sulaiku Jermil Bokarie vs. The State in 2008, submitting that even if the charges are defective, it can be cured, if it is clear that the incident is proved to have occurred and the defendant is connected to it.
The Magistrate went on to recall that the Prosecution had also referred to the case of John Harris (1910) and submitted that the case laid down the principles of incitement and that no argument can be made without reference to the case.
He said the Prosecution had also submitted that in the case of incitement, it can be made even if it is not directed to a specific (125) individual, maintaining that an incitement is made if it is directed at the public, and that the Prosecution had further submitted that incitement can take the form of advice, suggestion or encouragement, and that it is either of these suggestions that could amount to incitement.
He also recounted that the Prosecution had also submitted that the law in a no case submission is clear in R vs. Galbraith (1981) and the practice direction of Lord Parker, pointing out that the Defence did not make reference to those laws, and that the Prosecution had further submitted that the evidence before the court is sufficient to put the Defendant on trial and had urged the court to dismiss the no case submission on behalf of the defendant.
On the bases of the legal arguments proffered by both Defence and Prosecution Magistrate Brima Jah ruled thus: “I have considered the evidence of the Prosecution and the no case submission of the Defence, and the circumstances in which the no case submission could be upheld. In order to determine whether to uphold the no case submission or not, the Prosecution must prove a case to be made against the Defendant.
The principles on the no case submission are outlined in the case of R vs. Galbraith (1981). A submission of a no case to answer may properly be made where (a) there has been no evidence to prove an essential element of the offence; (b) where the evidence adduced by the Prosecution has been so discredited as a result of cross-examination or is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal could safely convict upon it.
The correct approach of this practice direction was applied in the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Galbraith (1981) in the Court of Appeal where reference was made to uphold a Defence submission of no case to answer made (126) at the conclusion of the Prosecution’s evidence of the trial. I have directed my mind to the issues raised by the Defence in their submission of no case to answer.
I have carefully read the no case submission by the Defence and the reply thereto by the Prosecution. The Defence had submitted that the charges on the face of the information are defective in terms of form and uncertainty and therefore must fail.
I now looked at the law to address the issues raised by the Defence.
I refer to Section 49(1) of the CPA 2004, Act No. 8 of 2004, which states that: “An information or indictment shall be sufficient if it contains a statement of the specific offence or offences with which the defendant is charged together with the particulars as may be necessary for giving reasonable information as to the nature of the charge.”
I further refer to Section 47(a) of the CPA of 2004, Act No. 8 of 2004, which states that: “Notwithstanding any rule of law or practice, an information or indictment shall not be subject to objection in respect of its form or content if it is framed in accordance with the rules made under this Act (127).
The Defence had relied on international authority which is persuasive. I am not bound by such authority. I am bound by local laws and the decided cases of the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court and I have seen that the Prosecution had complied with the rules as laid down in the First Schedule of the CPA of 2004, Act No. 8 of 2004.
The Defence could chose to object to the charges therein. I hold that as long as charges have been framed in accordance with the aforementioned provisions, any defects in them are irrelevant. Assuming the charges are bad in law as submitted by the Defence, the question I will ask myself is, whether the defects in the charges should destroy the Prosecution’s case; but if it is clear from the evidence that the incident alleged is proved to have occurred and the Defendant is strongly connected to it; and whether any conviction id proffered based on the said evidence on the face of the said error cited, it would amount to miscarriage of justice.
My answer to that is in the negative. No miscarriage of justice would be done should the defendant be convicted on faulty charges.
In the Court of Appeal decision in Sulaiku Jermil Bokarie vs. The State (Cr. App No. 7 of 2000) delivered in 2008, all three Judges laid down the legal principles that a court can convict a defendant even on a defective charge if the evidence proves culpability and the offence has been reasonably explained.
In the charge sheet, Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour (JSC) in his dissenting judgment discussed the issue of a defective charge and had this to say: “In our instant case, the charge is not even defective, but assuming that it is defective, the law is that a defective charge could in appropriate cases be cured. It is a settled law that a defect in a charge cannot nullify a conviction so long as the offence known in law is disclosed in the charge.”
It is therefore clear from these authorities that where there is evidence explaining the incident alleged and giving out the time and place of such incident, the court must not rely on technicalities and dismiss such an incident.
What is important is that when the defendant is charged with the offence, sufficient details are given in the particulars of offence as to when and where the alleged offence was committed.
Therefore, it cannot be said that because she was not charged under the correct rubric, the whole proceedings has been rendered a nullity.
In light of the analysis of the evidence above and drawing from the guidelines mentioned above, I hold on the case that has been established for the Defendant to answer and “a no case” submission cannot answer for it.
I therefore dismiss the no case submission and I order the Defence to open its case in order to determine the merits of the allegations.”
At this stage the Defense responded that it relies on Section 105 of the CPA 2008 and that the charge should be put to the Defendant whenever the charges are put to the Defendant by the Court Clerk.
At this juncture, the Defendant informed the court that she wanted to say something to the court.
In her unsworn statement, Defendant Yeabu Zainab Sheriff said: “I will always choose Sierra Leone above anything else; I am a proud citizen whose loyalty remains with the State of Sierra Leone.”
She went on to tell the court that she was previously married to an Englishman for seven years, but never applied for a British citizenship or a British passport. She also stated that she is currently married to a Danish citizen for over a decade and has still not sought a foreign citizenship.
“Even when I had to deliver one of my babies in Belgium due to lack of trusted medical care at home, I child did not obtain a Belgian citizenship because of my decision to remain fully Sierra Leonean,” she maintained, further asserting that her experiences during the civil war were mentally, emotionally and psychologically devastating. These experiences, she maintained, has made her realize the vulnerabilities of women in Sierra Leone—not only to domestic violence but also to political violence.
The defendant asserted that her advocacy has been focused on encouraging women to participate actively in politics and decision-making, and to protect their rights and bodies by making their voices heard. She pointed out that her campaign is meant to motivate women to believe in themselves and take their rightful places in governance.
She also told the court that the number of supporters attending the proceedings reflects that her message is resonating with women across the country.
Addressing the charges, the defendant argued that no witness came forward to confirm that they were incited by her statements. She noted that even the police investigator admitted there was no complainant and that the case was initiated by a cyber-unit officer who viewed the video in question.
She maintained that she did not incite anyone, and she did not mention any individual as a target, but that she merely made a recommendation regarding the seriousness of election rigging. She referenced Foday Sankoh, stating that anyone who attempts to undermine democratic processes should be treated with the seriousness of those who attempted to overthrow the government.
She clarified that during an interview at the stadium, she did not call for anyone to be killed, nor did she identify any person as a target. Instead, she said her statement was meant to emphasize the importance of protecting the constitution and preventing electoral malpractice.
On the charge of using threatening language, she argued that her remarks were not directed at any individual but were general recommendations reflecting the gravity of electoral offences. She stressed that she believes in the rule of law and not in extrajudicial killings.
The defendant further stated that her views were aimed at promoting democracy, good governance, and constitutional respect. She expressed disappointment that instead of being encouraged, she is being prosecuted for advocating for awareness, particularly among women.
She emphasized that her efforts are not for personal benefit but to serve as a stepping stone for women in Sierra Leone in their pursuit for equal rights and justice.
In an emotional conclusion, she implored national figures, including Patricia Kabbah and former First Lady Sia Nyama Koroma; reaffirmed her love and loyalty to Sierra Leone and recited the national pledge in court, ending with: “So help me God, and, Long live Sierra Leone!”
Lead Defense Counsel, Roland Wright renewed the bail application, adopting earlier submissions.
The Prosecution opposed, stating it is not bound by the Defense’s submission and would rely on their evidence.
In his ruling, Magistrate Jah refused bail, noting that the defendant was brought before the court on a bench warrant. He therefore adjourned the matter to April 7th, 2026 for further proceedings.