By: Audrey Raymonda John
magistrate Santigie Bangura of Pademba Road Court, No.2 in Freetown, has committed the matter against Pastor Fatoma Tommy Jusu.
The accused, Pastor Fatoma Tommy Jusu, is before the court on a count charge of Operating Private Security without a valid license contrary to section 31(8) of the National Security and Central Intelligence Act, 2023.
According to the indictment, the accused was found operating a private security agency without a valid license from the Office of National Security on July 5, 2024, at #59c Leicester Road Freetown.
The State prosecutor Yusuf Isaac Sesay Esq Led his witnesses, and the file was withdrawn for judgment.
Magistrate Bangura delivered his judgment and said the accused herein is charged with one count of Operating a Private Security Company without a Valid License, Contrary to section 31 (8) of the National Security and Central Intelligence Act of 2023. It is alleged against him that on Friday, the 5th of July 2024, at No.59 Leicester Road, Freetown, in the Freetown Judicial District, he operated a private security agency without a valid license from the Office of National Security.
A preliminary investigation was commenced against the accused because of the indictable nature of the offenses charged.
In presenting their case against the accused, the prosecution called five witnesses. They all testified and were cross-examined. At the end of the case for the prosecution, both the prosecutor and defense counsel submitted that they relied on the totality of the evidence adduced. The matter was then withdrawn for ruling.
In determining whether to commit the accused persons for trial, he considers the facts: Because this proceeding is a preliminary investigation, he is only looking for prema face evidence connecting the accused with the offense charged. Thus, the prosecution is charged with the burden of adducing sufficient evidence in that regard; and
“That the evidence adduced must be such as to satisfy the court of the following
That the accused operated a private security company and That he has no authority and or license to do so.”
The prosecuting counsel further considered the evidence of PWI, which was that the accused told him he operated an efficient security agency with 37 security guards deployed in various areas. I see PW2 confirming this when he said the accused told him he has 30 security guards in five locations. He further said accused.
The counsel told them at the Office of National Security that he had yet to complete the registration of his security agency. Increased significance is the evidence of PW3, the officer at the Office of National Security responsible for registering private companies, who said an unknown person reported being accused as the CEO of the Southern Lion Security and Logistics Services.
The complaint is that he worked for the accused without a salary. She asked the complainant to produce proof of his employment, and he produced a guarantor form bearing the name of the accused person’s security company. She said the accused told her that he has 14 guards and three clients at the Islamic College, the Evangelical Church, and S.V. Electronics shop.
The evidence adduced shows that the accused operated a private security company without a license from the appropriate authority.
He ruled, therefore, that with the piece of evidence, the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence, raising a “prema” face case to be answered by the accused on trial.
In pursuance of section 120 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1965, he committed to stand trial at the high court. The defense counsel, Chernor Kamara, renewed his previous bail applications on behalf of the accused person. Magistrate Bangura refused the bail application made by the defense based on public consideration.
