Defense Counsel Foregoes No-Case Submission, Opts to Rely on Prior Police Statement in Zainab Sheriff Trial

Defense Counsel Foregoes No-Case Submission, Opts to Rely on Prior Police Statement in Zainab Sheriff Trial

In the ongoing criminal proceedings involving Zainab Sheriff, the defense has strategically elected to rely exclusively on the defendant’s previously recorded police statement in lieu of filing a no-case submission.

During her fifth court appearance, Ms. Sheriff was granted a brief adjournment following her legal team’s formal indication that they would rest their case on her prior statement rather than advancing a formal argument for dismissal at the close of the prosecution's case.

The tribunal is currently adjudicating charges predicated on alleged inflammatory remarks delivered at the Brima Attouga Mini Stadium in Freetown.

The defendant is charged with incitement and the use of threatening language, pursuant to Section 30(1) of the Public Order Act of 1965. The prosecution contends that on January 31, 2026, Ms. Sheriff issued provocative statements purportedly inciting violence against individuals accused of electoral malpractice, stating:

“Clearly election don don and you nor get more money than me, you rogue election and cheat a whole eight million people dem and kill people dem and send dem go jail, we go send message say nobody nor go cheat an entire eight million people and proudly go free.”

Lead defense counsel Roland Wright invoked Section 115(d) of the legal code, informing the court that the defendant would neither submit a no-case plea nor present additional evidence. Consequently, the defense intends to rely solely on the evidentiary weight of her existing police statement.

Mr. Wright emphasized that Ms. Sheriff has exercised her right not to testify, choosing instead to conclude her defense based on the documentation already provided to law enforcement authorities.

Prosecutor Yusuf Isaac Sesay challenged the defense’s application of Section 115(d), arguing its inapplicability to summary trials. Citing Section 105, he maintained that the magistrate must adhere to specific procedural mandates requiring the defendant to answer directly to the charges.

The prosecution asserted that since the defendant entered a plea of not guilty, she is legally obligated to participate actively in the trial process and cannot utilize a prior statement as a means of circumventing judicial engagement.

Mr. Sesay further contended that the decision to forgo a formal defense was premature. He argued that the principles of natural justice require the defendant to respond to the allegations or provide substantive evidence, underscoring that the law necessitates active participation to uphold the integrity of fair trial procedures.

Notwithstanding the defense's position, Magistrate Jah noted the consensus reached between the parties and adjourned the matter to March 25, 2025, for further deliberation.

Ms. Sheriff’s defense team is comprised of several prominent practitioners, including Roland S.V. Wright, B. Michael, R.S. Bangura, and H.D. Timbo.

The court’s handling of this matter highlights the necessity of procedural compliance and the evolving interpretations of a defendant's duty to participate in summary proceedings while relying on prior statements.

The case remains a subject of significant legal interest, as it explores the intersection of procedural law and the constitutional rights of the accused within the context of summary jurisdiction.