By: Audrey Raymonda John
Magistrate Sahr Brima Jah has adjourned the ongoing matter between the State and Yabu Zainab Sheriff for judgment, following final arguments from both the prosecution and the defense.
The defendant, Yabu Zainab Sheriff, made her fourth appearance in court on Wednesday, 11th March 2026. The prosecution subsequently closed its case after calling two witnesses.
Sheriff is before the court over alleged inciting statements she reportedly made at the Brima Attouga Mini Stadium in Freetown. She is charged with incitement contrary to law and with using threatening language, contrary to Section 30(1) of the Public Order Act of 1965.
According to the police, on Saturday, 31st January 2026, at the Brima Attouga Mini Stadium within the Freetown Judicial District, the defendant allegedly made statements inciting violence against individuals accused of election rigging.
Police further alleged that she made statements suggesting that those responsible for election fraud and violence against citizens should not go unpunished, emphasizing the need to send a strong message against such actions.
In his submission, lead prosecutor Yusuf Issac Sesay stated that the prosecution is relying on the totality of the evidence presented. He argued that the court is in a proper position to determine the matter and emphasized that the magistrate is bound strictly by the evidence before the court.
He further submitted that, despite the no-case submission made by the defense, the evidence establishes the guilt of the defendant on all counts and urged the court to ensure a speedy conclusion of the case.
In response, lead defense counsel Roland Wright argued that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against the defendant. He maintained that the charges are defective in law and described the prosecution’s reliance on Section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act as flawed.
The defense further submitted that there is insufficient evidence to warrant the defendant being called upon to answer, insisting that the no-case submission was properly grounded.
During proceedings, the magistrate overruled attempts by the defense to revisit evidential matters, directing counsel to confine their arguments strictly to legal submissions. This resulted in a brief exchange between the bench and the defense.
Magistrate Jah cautioned defense counsel against revisiting issues the court had already ruled on, noting that such matters were no longer open for debate.
Tensions briefly rose in court, after which the defense applied for an adjournment.
In his ruling, Magistrate Jah adjourned the matter to 14th April 2026 for judgment, noting that the adjournment was granted at the request of the defense and in the interest of a speedy trial. He ordered defense counsel to submit their written closing address on or before Friday, 10th April 2026, adding that while such submissions may be persuasive, the court is not bound by them as the evidence is already before him.
He also directed state counsel to file any additional authorities they intend to rely on by the same date. The magistrate emphasized that he is not bound by the submissions of either party but will rely on the evidence presented.
The defendant has been remanded in custody pending judgment on 14th April 2026.