Defense Challenges Zainab Sheriff’s Conviction in High Court

Defense Challenges Zainab Sheriff’s Conviction in High Court

The High Court in Freetown convened on Thursday, July 2, 2026, to hear an appeal filed by Yeabu Zainab Sheriff. The appellant is seeking to overturn her conviction and four-year, two-month prison sentence, which were handed down by the Magistrate’s Court in April of this year for charges of incitement and threatening language.

Leading the defense, counsel Roland Wright urged the court to quash both the conviction and the sentence, arguing that the initial judgment was obtained under questionable and unlawful circumstances.

Counsel Wright presented several arguments challenging the legitimacy of the lower court’s proceedings. A central point of the appeal concerns the procedural handling of the case. Wright argued that the charge of incitement is a common law offence triable either summarily or on indictment, requiring the magistrate to obtain the appellant’s express consent before proceeding summarily—a step he claims was not taken, rendering the proceedings null and void.

Additionally, the defense challenged the validity of Count One of the charge sheet. Counsel alleged that the magistrate acknowledged the charge was defective but relied on a dissenting judgment rather than binding legal authority to proceed, a decision the defense contends rendered the conviction unsafe.

The defense also questioned the prosecution's evidence, highlighting that no individual had stepped forward to claim they were incited or threatened by the appellant. Wright emphasized that the alleged remarks originated from a private interview conducted by the blog "Born 2 Blog" during a political rally at Brima Attouga Mini Stadium on January 31, 2026.

According to the defense, the interview was published by the blogger and not by the appellant herself. Furthermore, the investigation was triggered when officers from the Criminal Investigation Department’s (CID) Cyber Unit discovered the publication online and independently determined the remarks were criminal.

Counsel argued that without a formal complainant or testimony from anyone influenced by the remarks, the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of the offences.

The High Court has adjourned the matter to July 16, 2026, for continued proceedings.