By: Audrey Raymonda John
The alleged incitement case involving Zainab Sheriff was adjourned after the defence informed the court that they had only just been served with the prosecution’s file and were not prepared to proceed.
Sheriff made her second appearance before Principal Magistrate Mustapha Briama Jah at Pademba Road Court No. 1 in Freetown in connection with statements she allegedly made at the Brima Attouga Mini Stadium.
The accused was arraigned on charges of incitement contrary to law and threatening language, contrary to Section 30(1) of the Public Order Act 1965.
According to the police, on Saturday, 31 January 2026, at the Brima Attouga Mini Stadium in Freetown, within the Freetown Judicial District, the defendant allegedly made inciting statements encouraging the killing of individuals accused of election rigging.
Police further alleged that Sheriff 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.”
Lead defence counsel R.M. Kondeh informed the court that the prosecution’s file had only just been served on the defence and that adequate time was needed to review it, noting the seriousness of the allegations against their client. The defence therefore applied for an adjournment.
State Prosecutor Yusuf Isaac Sesay Esq submitted that the prosecution had complied with Section 98(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act No. 8 of 2024, which requires service of documents on the defence within eight days of the accused’s first appearance.
He argued that the mere service of the file does not automatically prevent proceedings from continuing and maintained that there is no legal basis supporting the defence’s position. The prosecutor further contended that the adjournment request was unfair to the State.
In reply, the defence relied on their earlier application and urged the court to grant time for proper preparation.
Magistrate Jah refused bail, stating that he could not consider bail at that stage since the defence had sought an adjournment and the matter had not progressed to the stage of hearing evidence. He indicated that he would first hear the testimony of witnesses before considering any bail application.
The matter was adjourned to 4 March 2026 for continuation.