Court Gives Defence One Week for No-Case Submission
The long-running criminal trial of Lansana Dumbuya, former National Secretary General of the All People’s Congress (APC), advanced on Thursday, September 10, 2026, at the Pademba Road Court No.
1.
Principal Magistrate Mustapha Brima Jah granted the defence team a one-week timeline to file a no-case submission, signaling movement toward concluding proceedings that have lingered for months.
The ruling came following an application by lead defence counsel Africanus Sesay, who sought an adjournment while tendering an apology for Dumbuya’s absence during the preceding court session.
State Counsel Yusuf Isaac Sesay raised no objection to the adjournment request, though he highlighted the necessity of avoiding indefinite delays, stating, “There must be an end to litigation.”
Expressing clear frustration over the matter's prolonged timeline, Magistrate Jah issued a firm warning regarding future postponements.
“This matter has taken quite a long time in my court,” he noted, emphasizing that “justice delayed is justice denied.”
The court cautioned that if the defence fails to proceed at the next hearing scheduled for September 17, 2026, Dumbuya will be put to an election to either open his defence or face a ruling based on the evidence currently before the court.
Dumbuya faces a three-count indictment comprising incitement contrary to law, insulting language under Section 2 of the Public Order Act of 1965, and behaving in an insulting manner under Section 12(a) of the same statute. According to the prosecution, the charges stem from an incident on January 31, 2026, during a public address at the Brima Attouga Mini Stadium.
Prosecutors allege that Dumbuya encouraged supporters to refer to President Julius Maada Bio as a “thief,” used insulting language directed at ASP Francis Momodu Tommy, and incited crowds to chant derogatory remarks against the President.
The trial has drawn heightened public scrutiny amid ongoing political tensions. Legal representatives for Dumbuya contend that the prosecution is politically motivated and insist on their client's right to a fair trial free from unnecessary delays.
Meanwhile, observers view the magistrate's directive as a vital effort to maintain judicial efficiency and impartiality in high-profile political cases.
Comments