By: Audrey Raymonda John
The accused, Yabu Zainab Sheriff, on Wednesday, 11 March 2026, made her fourth appearance before the court, as the prosecution closed its case after calling two witnesses in the ongoing trial.
Zainab Sheriff is standing trial over alleged inciting statements she reportedly made at the Brima Attouga Mini Stadium in Freetown.
She has been charged with incitement and using threatening language, contrary to Section 30(1) of the Public Order Act of 1965.
According to the police, on Saturday, 31 January 2026, at the Brima Attouga Mini Stadium within the Freetown Judicial District, the defendant allegedly made statements encouraging the killing of individuals accused of rigging elections.
Police alleged that the accused made statements to the effect that:
“Clearly election don don and you nor get more money than me. You rogue election and cheat a whole eight million people dem and kill people dem and send dem go jail. We go send message say nobody nor go cheat an entire eight million people and proudly go free.”
State counsels Yusuf Isaac Sesay and A.B.N. Kamara Taylor appeared for the prosecution, while lead prosecutor Issa Sesay led the second prosecution witness, Ibrahim Sorie Kamara, DPC 18291.
Kamara, who is attached to the Cyber Laboratory of the Scientific Support Unit at the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), told the court that he has worked as a cyber systems analyst for over five years. He explained that part of his duties involves examining and extracting data from electronic devices used in investigations.
The witness said he holds a degree in cyber investigations.
He recalled that on 3 February 2026, while on duty at the cyber unit, the department received a correspondence together with a pen drive containing a video from Detective Abdul Slim Kamara, a line manager at the CID on Pademba Road, Freetown. The correspondence requested a forensic analysis of the video.
Kamara said the pen drive was carefully handled and physically examined before being inserted into a computer using a file manager to ensure the original data remained intact. The video was played repeatedly to verify its authenticity and later transcribed into English.
He further testified that on 20 February 2026, the cyber unit received an iPhone 15 Pro Max from Detective Abdulia Kamara along with a request for examination.
The witness said the device was first inspected to ensure it was in good condition. According to him, the code 98# was used to identify subscriber details, which indicated the name Zainab Sheriff, while #06# was used to obtain the International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) number.
The mobile phone was then connected to a laptop computer where a forensic image of the device was created to preserve the original data.
Kamara said a video like the one found on the pen drive was also discovered on the phone. The video was played several times and screenshots were taken and printed.
He told the court that his findings were compiled into a forensic report with attached photographs. The report was signed by him as the analyst and by Detective Sergeant Sahar Foday Labbie as a witness.
The printed photographs were later tendered in court as part of the prosecution’s evidence.
However, defence counsel JFK objected to the admission of the evidence, arguing that the contents of the pen drive were incompetent and irrelevant to the charges before the court. Counsel also argued that references to the APC could unfairly prejudice the defendant and that the prejudicial effect outweighed the probative value.
In response, the prosecution argued that the case before the court did not involve the APC and questioned why the defence was making representations on behalf of a political party that was neither a complainant nor a defendant in the matter.
The prosecution further submitted that the objection should be dismissed pursuant to Section 92(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act No. 4 of 2024, noting that the witness was the author and custodian of the photographs and therefore competent to tender them.
In his ruling, the Principal Magistrate stated that the matter before the court was not connected to the APC. He therefore dismissed the defence objection and admitted the photographs into evidence as Exhibit G.
The analysed video was also tendered and played in open court, while the transcription of the video was produced.
During cross-examination, lead defence counsel R.B. Wright asked the witness whether he had a copy of the transcribed video, to which the witness responded in the affirmative. Counsel also asked whether he was aware of AI-generated videos, and the witness said he was.
When asked whether he could produce a digital certificate confirming the authenticity of the video, the witness said he could not.
The defence also questioned the type of microphone used in the video and suggested it belonged to the Sierra Leone Broadcasting Corporation (SLBC), but the witness replied that the interview was not conducted by SLBC.
Counsel further asked whether the witness felt incited after watching the video, and he replied that he did not.
Following the testimony, the prosecution formally closed its case after calling two witnesses and tendering several exhibits.
The defence then requested an adjournment to prepare its case and seek further instructions from their client.
During the proceedings, defence counsel Basita Michael made a fresh bail application on behalf of the accused. During the application, the accused expressed deep regret over the language used in the alleged statement made during the political event.
She clarified that the statement was not an admission of guilt but an expression of regret for the stress and misunderstanding it had caused. She also stated that her remarks were directed at members of the APC and emphasized that women have the right to participate and lead in politics.
The defence further argued that there was no public disorder or violence following the statement and that no member of the public had made a complaint.
Citing Section 76(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2024, the defence assured the court that the accused would refrain from making political statements while the matter is ongoing and argued that she was not a flight risk.
However, the prosecution strongly opposed the application, arguing that the court should determine the case based strictly on its merits and not be influenced by public attention surrounding the matter.
The prosecutor referenced the warrant of arrest (Exhibit C) and other evidence, stating that the accused had previously failed to appear before the court and had to be brought in on a warrant.
The prosecution further argued that granting bail could undermine the proceedings and maintained that there was a possibility the accused could commit similar offences.
In his ruling, the Principal Magistrate stated that he had carefully considered both the bail application and the prosecution’s objections. The court held that the concerns raised by the prosecution regarding the possibility of the accused absconding were valid.
The Magistrate therefore refused the bail application and adjourned the matter to 18 March 2026 for the defence to open its case.