By: Audrey Raymonda John
Ten accused persons have been remanded at the Male Correctional Centre in Freetown after making their second appearance before Principal Magistrate Mustapha Brima Jah of Pademba Road Court No. 1, in connection with allegations of stealing a shipping container and other related offences at the Queen Elizabeth II Quay, Cline Town, Freetown.
The accused persons are Abu Bakarr Kabba Mansaray, Ibrahim Ahmed Kargbo, Ibrahim Bangura, Benito Conteh, Mohamed Amara Kamara, Alhassan Kamara, Jacob Gbaya, Mohamed Sahr Tommy, Chernor Amadu Sesay, and Abu Mansaray.
They are facing five counts of conspiracy to commit larceny, larceny, forgery, uttering a forged document, and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, contrary to law.
According to the prosecution, between 1 and 22 May 2026, the accused persons allegedly conspired with other persons unknown to steal a shipping container bearing serial number TLLU 2297785, together with its contents, from the lawful possession and control of the Sierra Leone Ports and Harbours Authority (SLPHA). The container had reportedly been detained by the Authority in connection with an ongoing police investigation.
The prosecution further alleges that on 13 May 2026, the accused persons stole the container and its contents with the intention of permanently depriving the SLPHA of the property.
The third count alleges that the ninth accused, Chernor Amadu Sesay, forged a staff identity card purportedly issued by Akim and Satu Clearing and Forwarding Agency, allegedly with the intention of facilitating the unlawful removal of the detained container. He is also accused of knowingly presenting the alleged forged identity card as genuine to deceive officials of the SLPHA.
The fifth count alleges that all ten accused persons conspired with others unknown to pervert the course of justice by concealing and suppressing material evidence, tampering with CCTV footage, procuring and using forged documents, and facilitating the unlawful removal of the container while it remained under police investigation.
No plea was taken after the charges were read and explained to the accused persons, as the matter is before the court through committal proceedings.
The prosecution was led by State Counsel Yusuf Isaac Sesay, while the accused persons were represented by a team of defence lawyers, including Maddieu Sesay, Brima Koroma, A. Kamara, C.M.B. Kamara, I. Steven, A. Sesay, S.S. Sillah, S. Tommy, J.M. Gengo, and E.A.M. Sam.
During the proceedings, the defence challenged the prosecution’s compliance with the disclosure requirements under the Criminal Procedure Act, 2024.
Counsel Maddieu Sesay, who represented the first, third, and ninth accused persons, argued that the prosecution had failed to comply with Sections 112 and 113 of the Act by not providing witness briefings alongside the witness statements. He submitted that the omission had deprived the defence of adequate time and information needed to properly prepare for the committal proceedings.
Counsel Sesay maintained that the statutory requirements must be fulfilled before the matter could proceed.
Counsel Brima Koroma, representing the second and fourth accused persons, associated himself with those submissions. He argued that the disclosure provisions were designed to protect the constitutional rights of accused persons and prevent trial by ambush. He insisted that the prosecution must fully comply with the law before the committal process continues.
Counsel J.M. Gengo, representing the eighth, ninth, and tenth accused persons, also adopted the submissions of his colleagues. He told the court that the defence was disadvantaged because it had not received sufficient disclosure to properly assess the prosecution’s case, adding that fairness requires full compliance with the statutory provisions.
In response, State Counsel Yusuf Isaac Sesay disagreed with the defence’s interpretation of the law. He argued that the Criminal Procedure Act provides a specific timeline for committal proceedings and that the prosecution had complied with its legal obligations by serving witness statements, relevant documents, and a list of physical and material exhibits within the required period.
State Counsel Sesay further argued that the prosecution was not legally required to separately provide a detailed list of witnesses as demanded by the defence. He explained that several prosecution witnesses are formal police witnesses whose main role is to tender statements obtained during investigations, adding that any concerns regarding their evidence could be addressed during cross-examination.
He urged the court to allow the proceedings to continue, noting that the accused persons remain in custody and that prosecution witnesses were available to testify within the statutory timeframe.
After hearing arguments from both sides, Principal Magistrate Mustapha Brima Jah ruled that the State should provide the defence with a list of witnesses it intends to call, to enable counsel to adequately prepare for cross-examination.
The matter was adjourned to 30 July 2026 for further committal proceedings, while all ten accused persons were remanded in custody pending their next court appearance.