Defense Challenges Incitement Charges in Zainab Sheriff Case; Ruling Due March 31

Defense Challenges Incitement Charges in Zainab Sheriff Case; Ruling Due March 31

Principal Magistrate Mustapha Braima Jah, presiding over Pademba Road Court No. 1 in Freetown, has adjourned the incitement proceedings involving Yeabu Zainab Sheriff. The court will reconvene at a later date to deliver a formal ruling on the defense's "no case to answer" submission.

Lead Defense Counsel Roland Wright moved for the dismissal of all charges, asserting that they are legally fundamentally flawed. Mr. Wright contended that the two counts—incitement and the use of threatening language—fail to disclose an offense recognized under law, thereby rendering them invalid.

The defense specifically challenged the structural and substantive integrity of the indictment. Counsel pointed out that the incitement charge lacks necessary specificity, failing to identify a predicate offense—such as incitement to murder or theft. Furthermore, the defense argued that the particulars of the offense are impermissibly vague, as they do not clarify whether the statements pertained to past or future events, nor do they identify any specific victims.

Drawing upon legal precedents, including Achibole and Regina v. Lian Smith (2004), Mr. Wright emphasized that an indictment must clearly define the alleged crime. He maintained that such ambiguity constitutes a jurisdictional defect, rendering the charges null and void.

Regarding the second count of threatening or insulting language, the defense argued the charge is defective due to its failure to identify the intended target of the alleged remarks. Mr. Wright further asserted that video evidence previously presented to the court confirms that Ms. Sheriff’s comments regarding the Constitution and elections were protected expressions of opinion rather than criminal incitement.

The defense further noted that during cross-examination, a prosecution witness conceded that the statements in question did not incite them, which Mr. Wright argued significantly undermines the prosecution's burden of proof. Consequently, the defense urged the court to uphold the submission that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case.

In opposition, State Counsel Yusuf Isaac Sesay argued that the charges were properly drafted and supported by sufficient evidence under Section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2024. Citing the Court of Appeal decision in Suluku, Mr. Sesay maintained that the prosecution had successfully established a prima facie case. He clarified that, as a matter of law, incitement need not be directed at a specific individual but can be committed against the general public through advice or encouragement.

The prosecution highlighted that its case rests on the testimony of two witnesses and eight exhibits, including a video recording that allegedly demonstrates Ms. Sheriff’s criminal intent through her verbal conduct.

Following the review of both oral and written submissions, Magistrate Jah adjourned the matter to March 31, 2026. At that time, the court will rule on whether the defense's no-case submission is upheld or if the defendant will be required to enter her defense.