By: Audrey Raymonda John
Magistrate Mustapha Braima Jah of Pademba Road Court No. 1 has overruled an objection raised by counsel for the second defendant in a 61-count criminal case involving four accused persons over alleged fraud, forgery and the unauthorised production of vehicle registration documents and Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) stickers at the Sierra Leone Road Safety Authority (SLRSA).
The ruling followed submissions from both the defence and the prosecution after counsel for the second defendant challenged aspects of the proceedings and questioned the prosecution’s position on the charges and evidence before the court.
In response, the prosecution argued that the objection lacked sufficient legal grounds to halt the proceedings, maintaining that the matter was properly before the court for judicial investigation.
Delivering his ruling, Magistrate Jah clarified that the proceedings were at the stage of a judicial investigation and not a trial. He emphasised that the distinction was important in determining whether the objection could be sustained at that stage.
The magistrate further explained that the substantive issues surrounding the charges could only be determined through the appropriate judicial process. He consequently dismissed the objection and ordered that the judicial investigation continue.
The four defendants are facing a 61-count indictment involving allegations of conspiracy to defraud, forgery, uttering forged documents and printing vehicle licences without lawful authority.
They are 29-year-old Mustapha Rogers; 29-year-old Simeon Vibbie, a clearing and forwarding broker; 26-year-old Foday Jayah, an IT specialist; and 32-year-old Sahid Ahmed Sesay, a licence agent employed by the SLRSA.
The charges include conspiracy to defraud contrary to law, 14 counts of uttering forged documents contrary to Section 6(1) of the Forgery Act 1913, 15 counts of printing licences without authority contrary to Section 98(a) of the Road Traffic Act 2007, 14 counts of forgery of licences contrary to Section 98(a) of the same Act, and 16 counts of forgery contrary to Section 4(1) of the Forgery Act 1913.
According to the particulars of offence, on Tuesday, 22 September 2026, at the SLRSA Head Office on Kissy Road, Freetown, the defendants allegedly conspired with other persons unknown to defraud the authority.
The prosecution further alleged that Mustapha Rogers and Simeon Vibbie forged, uttered and printed several RFID stickers without lawful authority.
The charges include allegations involving RFID stickers bearing serial numbers 252022235 and 242049145, which were allegedly forged and presented as genuine documents prepared and issued by the Director of Licences at the SLRSA.
The two defendants were also accused of knowingly uttering the forged RFID stickers and printing them without lawful authority.
In a separate allegation, Mustapha Rogers and Foday Jayah were jointly charged with forging, uttering and printing a vehicle registration card bearing registration number AZT-760 without lawful authority.
Meanwhile, Sahid Ahmed Sesay faces several counts relating to the alleged forgery, uttering and unauthorised printing of RFID stickers bearing different serial numbers and vehicle registration details.
The prosecution alleged that the offences involving Sesay occurred between Monday, 2 December 2024, and Tuesday, 29 September 2026, at the SLRSA Head Office on Kissy Road, Freetown.
The RFID stickers mentioned in the charges include those associated with vehicle registration numbers AWC-467 and ASP-799, as well as serial numbers 242067626, 252013800, 242169588, 242169565 and 242173420.
According to the prosecution, the documents were allegedly forged to make them appear as though they had been prepared and issued by the Director of Licences at the SLRSA.
When the charges were read and explained to the defendants, no pleas were taken because the matter is still at the committal proceedings stage.
Following the ruling, the prosecutor, Assistant Commissioner of Police Juan M.S. Bull Esq., informed the court that the prosecution had prepared the remaining three copies of the case file for the second, third and fourth defendants.
He disclosed that the prosecution had received notices of intention from counsel representing the first and third defendants but was still awaiting the notices from counsel representing the second and fourth defendants.
In response, counsel for the second and fourth defendants explained that the notices had not been filed because the court had yet to deliver its ruling on the objection. They assured the court that the notices would be filed before the next adjourned date.
The defence team comprised C.B. Brownley Esq., H. Conteh Esq., M. Conteh, J.A. Sesay and M.S. Sankoh.
Meanwhile, Magistrate Jah refused bail to all four defendants, citing the seriousness of the offences they are facing.
The matter was adjourned to 18 November 2026 for further proceedings.