By: Audrey Raymonda John
Magistrate Mustapha Braima Jah of Pademba Road Court No. 1 has adjourned the ongoing incitement case involving Yeabu Zainab Sheriff for a ruling on a no case submission filed by the defence counsel.
The adjournment followed arguments on the submission, which was based on statements made by the accused while in police custody. The prosecution opposed the application, urging the court to dismiss it.
Zainab Sheriff appeared in court for the sixth time, facing two counts of incitement and threatening or insulting language contrary to Section 30(1) of the Public Order Act, 1965.
According to the prosecution, led by Yusuf Isaac Sesay, the accused allegedly made statements on 31 January 2026 at Brima Attouga Mini Stadium, Freetown, inciting violence against individuals accused of rigging elections and “cheating eight million people.”
Defence counsel, Roland S.B. Wright, argued in the no case submission that both charges are legally defective.
On count one, he claimed that the incitement charge is vague, failing to specify the offence allegedly incited. He maintained that a charge of incitement must clearly identify the specific crime intended, citing authorities such as Achibole and Regina vs Lian Smith (2004). The defence further noted that the particulars of the offence do not clarify whether the alleged statements referred to past or future elections, nor do they identify specific victims.
On count two, regarding threatening or insulting language, the defence argued that the charge fails to identify the intended recipients of the statements. Counsel also cited video evidence, contending that the accused’s comments addressed constitutional and electoral matters rather than inciting violence. He added that a prosecution witness admitted during cross-examination that they were not incited after viewing the video, suggesting no offence occurred.
The prosecution countered that the charges are valid under Section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2024 (Act No. 8 of 2024). State Counsel Sesay argued that incitement need not target a specific individual and can be directed at the general public. He noted that incitement can take the form of advice, suggestion, or encouragement. The prosecution presented two witnesses and eight exhibits, including a video, to demonstrate the accused’s alleged intent.
After hearing arguments from both sides, Magistrate Jah adjourned the case to 31 March 2026 for a ruling on whether to uphold or dismiss the no case submission.