By: Audrey Raymonda John
The Principal Magistrate of the Pademba Road Court No. 1, Magistrate Mustapha Briama Jah, on Tuesday 14 April 2026, sentenced Yeabu Zainab Sheriff to four years and two months imprisonment. The sentence is to run consecutively on two counts.
Zainab Sheriff was charged with incitement contrary to law and threatening language, contrary to Section 3(2) of the Public Order Act of 1965. According to the indictment, on 31 January 2026 at the Brima Attouga Mini Stadium in Freetown, she allegedly made inciting statements calling for the killing of individuals accused of rigging elections.
Delivering a 21-page judgment, Magistrate Jah stated that the accused was arraigned on two counts and pleaded not guilty, thereby putting the burden of proof on the prosecution.
He explained that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and that where doubt exists, the accused must be acquitted. However, where the prosecution succeeds, the court is obliged to convict.
The Magistrate noted that the prosecution called its first witness, DPC 13164 Sheku Turay of the Cyber Crime Unit at the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Headquarters. The witness testified that his unit monitors cyberspace and investigates cyber-related offences.
He told the court that on 31 January 2026, during routine monitoring of social media, they came across a video of Zainab Sheriff on Facebook pages including Born2Blog and Liberty Television Online. The video was downloaded onto a flash drive and tendered in evidence before the court. He further stated that attempts were made to contact the accused to report to the police station, but these were unsuccessful.
A second prosecution witness, DPC 18391, also testified, and his evidence corroborated the first witness. The video and written statements were admitted as evidence.
Magistrate Jah noted that the defence counsel, Roland Wright Esq., argued that the charge sheet was defective. However, the Magistrate ruled that the charges were properly framed in accordance with Section 49(1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2024.
He further dismissed the argument that there was no complainant in the matter, stating that the Inspector General of Police, representing the State, is a competent authority to initiate such proceedings. He cited legal precedent, including Mohamed v. Commissioner of Police (1954), to support his ruling.
The Magistrate added that the police have a duty to investigate offences to protect life and property, and are fully competent to act as complainants in criminal matters.
He further stated that the unsworn statement made by the accused carried limited evidential weight, as it was not subjected to cross-examination. He noted that the accused did not challenge the authenticity of the video evidence.
In conclusion, Magistrate Jah held that the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore found Zainab Sheriff guilty on both counts.
In her allocutus, the convict stated that she had nothing to say. Her defence counsel, Roland Wright Esq., also left sentencing to the discretion of the court.
State Prosecutor Yusuf Isaac Sesay argued that the offence attracts a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment or an alternative fine, but urged the court to impose a custodial sentence.
Magistrate Jah, however, declined to impose an alternative fine and sentenced Zainab Sheriff to four years and two months imprisonment on both counts, to run consecutively.