Court Dismisses No-Case Submission in Zainab Sheriff Trial

The court has dismissed a no-case-to-answer submission filed by the defense in the ongoing trial of Yeabu Zainab Sheriff, ruling that the charges of incitement and threatening language are properly framed and supported by sufficient evidence.

During the previous hearing, defense counsel R.V.S. Hingston argued that the charges were defective both in form and substance. He maintained that they were vague, incomplete, and failed to clearly identify the individuals allegedly incited or threatened. Citing legal authorities including Archbold and Regina vs Michael Irom Smith, Hingston urged the court to discharge the accused on the grounds that the charges did not meet the required legal standards.

However, Principal Magistrate Brima Jah rejected the submission, holding that the charges were properly framed in accordance with the law. He referenced Sections 47 and 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act No. 8 of 2004, noting that the provisions allow for flexibility where the substance of the offence is clearly established.

Magistrate Jah further explained that even where technical defects may exist, such shortcomings can be cured if the evidence sufficiently proves the incident and links the accused to it. He cited the Court of Appeal decision in Sulaiku Jermil Bokarie vs The State, which supports the position that a conviction may still stand despite minor procedural defects, provided there is credible evidence of culpability.

The magistrate emphasized that the particulars of the offence, including the nature of the statements, the context in which they were made, and their public audience, were adequate for the court’s consideration.

After reviewing the submissions and evidence presented, the court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused, warranting her to answer to the charges.

Consequently, the no-case submission was dismissed, and the defense was ordered to open its case.

In her subsequent unsworn statement from the dock, Sheriff reaffirmed her loyalty to Sierra Leone, denying any involvement in incitement or threats. She stated that her comments were intended to promote democracy and encourage women’s political participation, rather than incite violence or target individuals.

She further maintained that her remarks were general recommendations on electoral integrity and the rule of law, expressing disappointment over what she described as her prosecution for advocacy.

The matter has been adjourned to April 7, 2026, for continuation of proceedings.