By: Audrey Raymonda John
Thirty-nine-year-old Ishmael Hortons Jalloh, a banker, made another appearance before Magistrate John Manso Fornah of Pademba Road Court No. 2 on a single count of Larceny by Servant, contrary to Section 17(1)(a) of the Larceny Act 1916.
According to the police charge sheet, between 5th September 2022 and November 2024, at the Ecobank Head Office in Freetown, Western Area, Sierra Leone, the accused being a Card Operations Officer employed by Ecobank Sierra Leone Limited allegedly stole Nine Hundred and Eighty-One Thousand, Two Hundred and Sixty-Eight Leones, Thirty-Eight Cents (Le 981,268.38) in new notes from the Ecobank General Ledger. The prosecution alleges that the accused deposited the stolen funds into Car Tech Account No. 6340005879, from which the money was later withdrawn by the account owner upon the accused’s instructions. The funds were the property of Ecobank Sierra Leone Limited.
When the charge was read and explained, no plea was taken.
Deputy Superintendent of Police Sorie Conteh informed the court that the prosecution had closed its case, and the file was subsequently withdrawn for ruling.
In delivering his ruling, Magistrate Fornah stated that the matter commenced by way of preliminary investigation. The prosecution called three witnesses, two factual and one formal, who testified and were duly cross-examined by defence counsel. At the close of the prosecution’s case, the defence filed a no-case submission, to which the prosecution replied. Magistrate Fornah referenced the established legal principles governing no-case submissions, drawing on Lord Parker’s Practice Direction on Submission of No Case to Answer (1962 AER 448), as well as the English case R v. Galbraith (1981) 1 WLR 1039 (CA), which provides guidance on assessing whether a case should proceed. He also cited relevant Sierra Leonean authorities, including Koroma v. The Republic (1964-1966) ALRSL 24, emphasizing that the burden always rests on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
He further noted that if the prosecution fails to meet this threshold, the defendant must be acquitted as a matter of right not out of favour.
After reviewing the entire evidence presented, Magistrate Fornah held that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence connecting the defendant to the alleged offence, warranting the committal of the matter to the High Court for trial.
Accordingly, he committed the matter to the High Court pursuant to Section 116(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2024. Bail remains in force for the defendant.