By Audrey Raymonda John
Nineteen-year-old unemployed Emma Morlia Sesay has been committed to the High Court by Magistrate Santigie Bangura of Pademba Road Court No. 2 for allegedly stealing a one-week, five-day-old child. The charge, categorized under Section 56 of the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861, stems from an incident that reportedly occurred on November 13, 2024, in the Fort Street area of Freetown.
According to court documents, Sesay is accused of taking a one-week and five-day-old baby boy, Mustapha Sesay, from his parents without their consent.
When the charge was read and explained to the accused during her first appearance, no plea was taken.
After the prosecutor, Sergeant 8811 Florence M. Wilson, presented the case by calling witnesses, the file was withdrawn for ruling.
Magistrate Bangura delivered his ruling, stating that the accused stands charged with one count of child stealing, contrary to Section 56 of the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861. It is alleged that on November 13, 2024, at Fort Street, Freetown, Sesay stole Mustapha Sesay, a one-week, five-day-old baby, against the will of his parents.
The prosecution presented two witnesses, one formal and one factual, who both testified and were cross-examined. However, the prosecution failed to proceed with other witnesses despite several adjournments, leading to the closure of their case and withdrawal of the file for ruling.
In determining whether the accused has a case to answer, Magistrate Bangura considered that he was only looking for sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for the accused to answer. He stated that the prosecution bears the burden of providing sufficient evidence in this regard.
Magistrate Bangura observed that the accused had confessed and admitted to the allegations in her police statement (Exhibit A1-8). She confirmed the allegations were true, corroborating the testimony of the complainant (PW1) that she took the baby without consent.
The statement was considered a direct corroboration of the complainant’s evidence, which stated that the accused took the child and did not return him until authorities were alerted from Makeni, where the accused was arrested with the child.
This was deemed sufficient evidence to establish more than a prima facie case for the accused to face trial.
Magistrate Bangura also considered the defense’s submission that there was no case to answer. According to legal principles from Lord Parker and Lord Lane, a “no case” submission could be upheld if:
There is no evidence connecting the accused with the offences charged.
The elements of the offenses have not been proven
The evidence of the prosecution has been destroyed or weakened under cross-examination to the point that it would be difficult to rely on it.
The evidence, taken at its highest, would not allow a reasonable judge to safely convict.
The Magistrate found that there was sufficient evidence to proceed with the trial, emphasizing that the accused’s actions—taking the child and not returning him until being arrested in Makeni—suggested an intent to permanently deprive the mother of the child. Therefore, the case would proceed to trial.
After the ruling, defense counsel A.N.D. Musa Esq. renewed the accused’s bail application. Magistrate Bangura granted bail to the accused in the sum of one hundred thousand Leones with two sureties in like sum. The sureties must be responsible citizens residing in Freetown and provide valid identification cards with addresses in Freetown. Bail will be approved by the Deputy Assistant Registrar.