By: Audrey Raymonda John
An ongoing affray case involving siblings Suliaman Tarawally and Susan Tarawally took an unexpected turn at Pademba Road Magistrate Court No. 3 in Freetown, as the two parties appeared in different capacities during the proceedings.
The matter is before Magistrate Saio Mamakoh Betty Kallon and relates to an alleged fight that reportedly occurred on May 13, 2026, at No. 9 Andrew Street, Freetown.
According to the particulars of the offence, the parties are alleged to have engaged in a fight in a manner likely to cause members of the public to fear, contrary to Section 11 of the Public Order Act No. 46 of 1965.
During cross-examination by defence counsel A.R. Blaq, Susan Tarawally was asked about the duration of the alleged incident. She told the court that she could not remember the exact length of time the incident lasted.
When asked whether she was at the scene with Suliaman Tarawally on the day in question, Susan responded in the affirmative.
Counsel further suggested that Suliaman was coming down the stairs while allegedly using abusive language. Susan explained that she initially ignored him but responded after he pointed a finger directly at her.
The witness confirmed that she made a statement to the police following the incident. When asked whether she could identify the statement if shown to her, she said yes and agreed for it to be tendered in evidence. The statement was subsequently admitted into the court record.
Susan also confirmed that Suliaman was not carrying any weapon during the alleged incident and that the confrontation took place within the compound.
When counsel put it to her that she and Suliaman were not on good terms at the time of the incident, she agreed.
She maintained that the court should rely on her statement, while also acknowledging that she had insulted the accused. However, she clarified that the remarks were directed at his mother and sister.
The proceedings later took an unusual turn when Suliaman Tarawally, who had initially appeared as the accused, was also treated as a complainant and witness in the matter.
Counsel A. Mansaray, who had previously been associated with the prosecution, appeared for the defence, while A.R. Blaq, who had represented the accused earlier, switched to associate with the prosecution.
Mansaray informed the court that the defence had still not been served with the required proof of service.
Relying on Section 98(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2024, counsel argued that the prosecution was required to serve the defence within eight days of the accused’s first appearance in court.
He submitted that the failure to comply with the requirement amounted to a breach of the law and urged the court to strike out the proceedings with costs.
Magistrate Kallon asked counsel to identify the specific legal provision that required the matter to be dismissed. In response, Mansaray argued that the court had inherent jurisdiction to strike out the case.
The magistrate explained that the relevant provision required the court to direct the prosecution to comply with the service requirement rather than immediately dismissing the matter.
She therefore granted the prosecution an additional three days to serve the defence with the proof of service.
Magistrate Kallon warned that failure to comply within the given period could lead to the matter being discharged.
Before adjourning the case, the magistrate cautioned both Suliaman and Susan Tarawally to avoid confrontation and maintain peaceful conduct.
The matter has been adjourned to August 17, 2026, for further proceedings.