By Hassanatu I. Conteh
A 41-year-old businessman, Mohamed Nicol, on Tuesday made another appearance before Magistrate John Manso Fornah at Pademba Road Magistrate Court No. 2 in Freetown, where he is standing trial on one count of obtaining money by false pretences, contrary to Section 32(1) of the Larceny Act of 1916.
According to the particulars of the offence, Nicol allegedly obtained a total of Le311,000 from the complainant, Victor Comer, on diverse dates between 1st January, and 31st October, 2025 at No. 11 Alusine Street, Juba Hill in Freetown. The Prosecution alleges that the Defendant falsely represented that he would secure a Canadian visa and also to ensure the facilitation of the Complainant’s travel to Canada, knowing the representation to be false.
During the proceedings, the Prosecution sought to tender a video recording through its Second Prosecution Witness (PW2), Mariatu Bangura. In her earlier testimony, Bangura told the court that she used a Redmi Android mobile phone to record the Defendant while he was counting money that she and the Complainant had paid to him.
Defence Counsel objected to the admissibility of the video evidence, arguing that the Prosecution had failed to establish the exact date on which the recording was made. The Defence Counsel further submitted that the video should first be authenticated by a qualified expert from the Judiciary of Sierra Leone before it could be admitted into evidence.
The Defence also contended that the faces of the witness and another individual appearing in the video were not clearly visible, adding that the Defendant’s face was not sufficiently identifiable to support the Prosecution’s case.
Responding to the objection, the Prosecuting Counsel, D.S.P. Conteh argued that PW2 was the maker and author of the video and was therefore a competent witness to tender it in evidence. The Prosecutor told the court that the witness had testified that she personally recorded the video while the payment was being made to the Defendant. The Prosecutor further submitted that the video clearly shows the Defendant receiving and counting the money, making it a material piece of evidence in the Prosecution’s case.
The Prosecution therefore urged the court to dismiss the Defence’s objection and admit the video into evidence through its maker.
In his ruling, Magistrate Fornah held that having considered the submissions of both Counsels, the witness was “a fit and proper person” to tender the video, as she was its maker and author. Accordingly, the court overruled the Defence’s objection and permitted the Prosecution to tender the video through PW2.
The matter was adjourned to 28th July, 2026 for the continuation of the testimony of the Second Prosecution Witness.