By: Audrey Raymonda John
The ongoing matter between the State and Zainab Sheriff took a significant turn as the court dismissed a no-case submission filed by the defence and ordered the accused to open her case.
Presiding over the matter, Principal Magistrate Brima Jah ruled that the prosecution had established a prima facie case requiring the defendant to respond to the charges.
Zainab Sheriff is facing two counts: incitement contrary to law and the use of threatening language, contrary to Section 3(1) of the Public Order Act of 1965.
During the proceedings, the prosecution called two witnesses who testified and were cross-examined, with exhibits tendered in evidence. At the close of the prosecution’s case, defence counsel, R.V.S. Hingston Esq., made a no-case submission, arguing that the charges were defective in both form and substance.
The defence contended that the incitement charge was vague and failed to specify the offence allegedly incited, the persons involved, or whether the statements referred to past or future elections. Counsel further argued that the charge of threatening language was also defective for not identifying any specific individual targeted.
In support of his arguments, the defence cited legal authorities, including Regina v. Michael Irom Smith (2004) and Republic v. Mohamed Ibrahim (2005), asserting that the alleged defects rendered the charges invalid and deprived the court of jurisdiction.
However, State Counsel, V.I. Sesay, opposed the submission, maintaining that the charges were properly framed in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) No. 8 of 2004. He argued that even if defects existed, they were curable, provided the evidence established that the offence occurred and that the defendant was connected to it.
The prosecution further relied on established legal principles, including R v. Galbraith (1981), to argue that sufficient evidence had been presented to require the defendant to enter a defence.
In his ruling, Magistrate Jah referenced relevant provisions of the CPA 2004, emphasizing that the information is valid if it sufficiently informs the defendant of the nature of the charges. He held that courts should not rely on technicalities where there is evidence explaining the alleged offence.
The magistrate also cited the Court of Appeal decision in Sulaiku Jermil Bokarie v. The State (2008), noting that a conviction can still stand even where a charge is defective, provided the offence is disclosed and supported by evidence.
Accordingly, Magistrate Jah dismissed the no-case submission and ordered the defence to open its case.