By Janet A. Sesay
Principal Magistrate Mustapha Braima Jah of Pademba Road Court No. 1 in Freetown has adjourned the ongoing incitement matter between the State and Yeabu Zainab Sheriff for ruling on a no case submission made by her defence lawyers.
This latest adjournment comes in the wake of arguments raised when the Lead Defence Counsel, Roland Wright maintained that they relied on the police statement made by the defendant while in custody, a submission that was objected to by the Prosecution and called for it to be dismissed.
This is Madam Sheriff’s seventh appearance in court on her two count charges of incitement and threatening language contrary to Section 30(1) of the Public Order Act of 1965.
The prosecution, led by Yusuf Isaac Sesay, alleges that on 31st January, 2026 at the Brima Attouga Mini Stadium in the Freetown Judicial District, the defendant made statements considered to incite violence against individuals accused of rigging elections and “cheating eight million people.”
Lead Defence Counsel, R.B. Wright, made a no case submission, arguing that the charges against the defendant are invalid in law. He submitted that both counts do not disclose any known offence and should therefore be dismissed.
In respect of count one, he argued that the charge of “incitement contrary to law” is defective in form and uncertain, as it fails to specify the actual offence allegedly incited. He maintained that, unlike conspiracy, a charge of incitement must clearly state the specific offence, such as incitement to commit murder, theft, or forgery.
Counsel Wright cited authorities including Achibole and Regina vs Lian Smith (2004) to support his argument that the statement of offence must disclose the particular crime intended.
He further argued that the particulars of offence are vague and uncertain, as they do not indicate whether the alleged statements referred to past or future elections, nor do they identify any specific victims or persons incited.
He submitted that such uncertainty renders the charge a nullity and deprives the court of jurisdiction.
On count two, relating to threatening or insulting language, the defence argued that the charge is also defective for failing to identify the person or persons to whom the alleged statements were directed at.
Counsel referenced the video evidence tendered in court, stating that the defendant’s comments about the Constitution and elections did not amount to incitement but were merely expressions suggesting possible consequences.
He further noted that during cross-examination, a prosecution witness admitted that he was not incited after watching the video, thereby indicating that no offence was committed.
Counsel therefore urged the court to hold that the defendant has no case to answer.
In reply, State Counsel Yusuf Isaac Sesay submitted that the defence’s arguments were based on issues of form, uncertainty and alleged insufficiency of evidence.
He argued that the charges are properly framed in accordance with Section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2024 (Act No. 8 of 2024) and that the defence had failed to show any breach of the law.
Sesay further relied on judicial authorities, including a Court of Appeal decision in Suluku to support the validity of the charges and the occurrence of the alleged offence.
On the issue of incitement, he submitted that the offence does not need to be directed at a specific individual, as it can be aimed at the general public. He explained that incitement may take the form of advice, suggestion, or encouragement.
He informed the court that the prosecution led two witnesses and tendered eight exhibits, including a video recording, which he said demonstrated the defendant’s intention through her words and conduct.
State Counsel Sesay therefore urged the court to dismiss the no case submission, maintaining that the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused.
Magistrate Mustapha Braima Jah, having heard submissions from both counsels, adjourned the matter to 31st March, 2026 for ruling on whether to uphold or dismiss the no case submission.