By Janet A Sesay
The principal Magistrate of the Freetown Magistrate Court No.1, Magistrate Mustapha Briama Jah past Tuesday, 14th April, 2026 sentenced Zainab Yebu Sheriff to four years, two months imprisonment and ordered that the sentence be run consecutively.
Zainab Yebu Sheriff was dragged to court on two count charges of incitement, contrary to law and threatening language, contrary to Section 3(2) of the Public Order Act of 1965.
The indictment states that Zainab Yebu Sheriff on the 31st January, 2026 at the Brima Attouga Mini Stadium in the East of Freetown, made inciting statements of the killing of individuals that rigged the 2023 elections to wit “you rig the election, you cheat over eight million people dem, dem nor for just kill you, dem for kill you Mama, kill you Papa, you pikin dem. Dem for erase you whole bloodline, we for set a lesson and message say nobody nor go cheat di entire eight million people en proudly go free.”
Delivering a twenty-one (21) page judgement, Magistrate Mustapha Briama Jah said the convict, Zainab Yebu Sheriff was arraigned before the court on two count charges of incitement and threatening language.
He said the convict after hearing the charges pleaded not guilty of the offences and therefore she put her burden to be proved by the prosecution.
Magistrate Mustapha Briama Jah said it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the burden of guilt against the defendant, Zainab Sheriff and if at the end there is a reasonable doubt against her, she will be acquitted, but that where the prosecution succeeds in proving their case, the defendant will be sentenced accordingly.
Magistrate Mustapha Briama Jah said the prosecution opened their case with testimony of the First Prosecution Witness (PW1), DPC 13164 Sheku Turay attached to the Cyber Crime Unit at the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) headquarters on Pademba Road, Freetown.
He said witness Turay said some of his duties are to monitor the cyber space and investigate cyber offenses.
Magistrate Jah said PW1testified that on the 31st January, 2026, the Cyber Crime Unit, CID headquarters were doing their daily routine check on the cyber space when they came across a certain video of Zainab Sheriff on Facebook page of Born2blog and Liberty Television online which attracted them and that the video was downloaded in a pen drive which was tendered before the court.
Magistrate Jah further stated that PW1 in his testimony said after going through the video, several attempts were made via phone calls to invite Zainab to the police station but to no avail.
He said the Second Prosecution Witness (PW2) also testified before the court and that his testimony corroborated with that of PW1.
He said the statements of Zainab Sheriff and the pen drive where the said video was downloaded were tendered before the court.
The learned Magistrate in his judgement said incitement means encouraging others to do something which would amount to a crime and this may be by means of advice, persuasion or suggestions.
He added that while looking at the content of the video, the words contained in the video came out verbally by Zainab Sheriff and having examined the words in the video, the key elements is that a direct actionable communication was done which aimed at producing immediate illegal activities with a specific intent that crime will be committed.
He said it is in evidence that the video was aired by social media platforms such as Born2blog and Liberty Television online and that these social media platforms have thousands of viewers.
Magistrate Jah said moreover Zainab Sheriff was in possession of the video which she shared on social media, adding that those words in the context of the video pose a genuine threat to the public and has clear potential to incite violence.
Magistrate Jah further stated that lead defense counsel, Roland Wright raised an issues throughout the trial about defective information on the face of the indictment, but in his judgement, he said, the charges were properly framed according to Section 49(1)(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act of 2024, adding that he can properly convict Zainab Sheriff on the basis of the said charges in the indictment.
Magistrate Jah said the second issues raised by defense counsel was that there is no complainant in the matter. He however stated that in his own view there is a complainant in the matter and that the complainant is the Inspector General of Police who is representing the State.
Magistrate Jah added that the case established that the police have a duty to investigate and prosecute offences irrespective of who files the complaint.
He therefore made reference to the case of Mohamed versus Commissioner of Police in 1954.
Magistrate Jah further stated that from the evidence, PW1 Turay said he came across the video on social media platforms and that there was need to investigate.
He added that the role of the police is to protect life and property and that the police are more than competent to be the complainant in any criminal matter.
Magistrate Jah further stated that defense Counsel Roland Wright raised another issue that despite the fact that there was no complainant in the matter, those who felt aggrieved about the conduct of Zainab Sheriff did not make a complaint neither testify in court and therefore the prosecution failed in that aspect.
Reading further, Magistrate Jah said in his direct mind there is a plethora of authorities laying the legal principles that even though there is no victim to testify in court, if the evidence is sufficient before the court, the court can convict the person on the basis of the evidence before the court.
He added that the court will never make it a practice to ignore such situations and dismiss a case on the basis of the failure of a victim to testify.
He said the court can convict a person on the basis of the evidence of a single witness.
Magistrate Jah further stated that there have been a lot of instances in which convictions have been secured even without the complainant appearing in court to testify.
Magistrate Jah in reading his judgment further said the unsworn statements of Zainab Sheriff in the dock do not carry weight, adding that it is settled in law that unsworn statements made by the defendant in the dock does not carry weight and such statements are not subjected to scrutiny by way of cross examination unlike sworn testimony in which the defendant is subjected to cross examination and has weight.
He said Zainab throughout her unsworn statements did not challenge the authenticity of the video and that she admitted to be the speaker in the said video and so the video is not in contention.
He said the same video was found in her possession which was tendered in court as Exhibit J1-16 and that Zainab Sheriff shared the video with two people which means, she helped to disseminate the said message.
Magistrate Mustapha Briama Jah in conclusion said after going through the entire evidence before him in analysis and the law, he therefore holds it that the prosecution has proven their case against Zainab Sheriff beyond all reasonable doubts.
He therefore found Zainab Yebu Sheriff guilty of the offences she was charged with.
Zainab Sheriff in her allocutus said she has nothing to say.
Her lead defense counsel, Roland Wright in his plea mitigation said the statements made by his client were clear in the constitution of Sierra Leone.
He further stated that he would leave everything to the discretion of the Magistrate.
Lead State prosecutor Yusuf Isaac Sesay first of all thanked the Magistrate for such judgment, adding that the judgement may not be well received by all but people ought to respect judgement whenever it is delivered.
Counsel Sesay further stated that they will not celebrate on the judgement given but feel satisfied that justice has been served.
He said in law, such offense committed has two options in which the defendant is either sentenced accordingly or pays an alternative fine. Counsel Sesay said in this case, they are not asking for an alternative but a direct sentence of Zainab Sheriff.
Magistrate Jah, before handing down the sentence said the offense committed is of a serious nature and that he will not grant an alternative but a direct sentence.
He therefore sentenced Zainab Yebu Sheriff to 4 years imprisonment on court one which is incitement and 2 months imprisonment on court two, which is threatening language.
He ordered that the sentence be run consecutively.