By: Audrey Raymonda John
Tensions ran high at the Pademba Road Magistrate Court No. 3 during a dramatic legal showdown over a criminal case involving alleged assault and malicious damage in Juba Pipeline, Freetown.
The accused Isata Kamara, Sheku Koroma, and one Ibrahim, alias ‘Oga’ were facing multiple charges including malicious damage, common assault, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The case was brought by complainants Emilia Bright, Alucious Kamara, Rashid Kamara, and Amadu Jalloh, all residents of the Juba Pipeline community.
According to the charges, the accused alongside unidentified individuals allegedly destroyed windows, doors, a vehicle park light, and roofing sheets belonging to the complainants, with the total cost of the damage estimated at NLe 30,000. Additionally, they were accused of physically assaulting Alucious Kamara and Rashid Kamara during the incident, which occurred on May 12, 2025.
However, the matter took an unexpected turn when State Counsel Yusuf Isaac Sesay, acting on instructions from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), presented a letter requesting the discontinuation of the case under Section 66(4)(c) of the 1991 Constitution.
“This is a directive from the DPP’s office. The law gives them constitutional authority to discontinue any criminal matter when deemed necessary,” Sesay stated, clarifying that the instruction came directly from the DPP, not his personal decision.
The announcement sparked immediate opposition from defence counsel Daniel Fofanah, who objected to the sudden move, arguing that the accused were making their first court appearance and that the complainants had not been formally notified of the discontinuation.
Fofanah argued that the Criminal Procedure Act of 1965 contains no provision exempting any party from being served notice; the DPP’s authority is not immune to scrutiny and should not bypass due process; failing to notify the complainants could amount to procedural injustice.
He maintained that both the complainants and the accused were entitled to formal notice of the DPP’s decision.
In response, State Counsel Sesay reiterated that the DPP’s directive was constitutionally valid, legally binding, and not open to challenge in such proceedings.
Following heated arguments, Magistrate Mamakoh Soa Kallon ruled in favour of the State, upholding the DPP’s directive.
“This is not a personal application from the defence, but a binding constitutional order from the DPP’s office,” she ruled. The matter was immediately discharged.