By: Alimatu Kargbo
Two barristers accused of defrauding businessman Bockarie Conteh of US$114,000 in connection with three Toyota 4Runner vehicles have been committed to stand trial before the High Court after Magistrate Mustapha Brima Jah rejected their no-case submission.
The accused, 34-year-old Maurice Jenner Mohamed Seisay and 35-year-old John Mans, are facing two counts of conspiracy to defraud, contrary to law, and obtaining money by false pretences by means of forged documents, contrary to Section 52.
According to the particulars of the allegations, between November 1 and 30, 2023, at Harding Sesay and Partners Law Firm, No. 49 Dundas Street, Freetown, the accused allegedly conspired with other persons unknown to defraud Conteh.
The second count alleges that, during the same period and at the same location, the accused obtained three Toyota 4Runner vehicles valued at US$114,000, belonging to Conteh, on the representation that payment would be made within 30 working days, knowing the representation to be false.
When the charges were read and explained, no plea was taken as the matter was before the court for committal proceedings.
Yusuf Isaac Sesay represented the State, while J.M. Gengo and M.C. Necole Wilson appeared for the defence.
At the close of the prosecution’s case, defence counsel submitted that the accused had no case to answer, asking the court to discharge them.
The prosecution opposed the application, maintaining that the evidence presented was sufficient to require the accused to face trial before the High Court.
In his ruling, Magistrate Jah said he had carefully considered the evidence presented by the prosecution, the defence’s no-case submission, the prosecution’s response and the legal authorities relied upon by both sides.
The Magistrate explained that at the committal stage, his duty was not to conduct the full trial or determine the ultimate guilt or innocence of the accused, but to establish whether sufficient evidence existed to put them on trial before the High Court.
He referred to Section 113(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act No. 8 of 2024, which empowers a Magistrate to commit a defendant for trial before the High Court where the evidence is sufficient.
The court also considered the circumstances under which a no-case submission may properly succeed, including where there is no evidence capable of proving an essential element of the alleged offence, where the prosecution’s evidence is too weak to substantiate the allegations, or where the evidence is so unreliable that no reasonable tribunal could safely rely on it.
After reviewing the evidence, Magistrate Jah concluded that the prosecution had established a case requiring an answer from the accused.
“There is a case for the defendant to answer,” the Magistrate ruled, consequently refusing the no-case submission.
He further held that the weight of the evidence was sufficient to put the accused on trial and committed them to the High Court.
Despite committing the two barristers to the High Court, Magistrate Jah granted them bail under substantial financial and surety conditions.
The first defendant was admitted to bail in the sum of NLe5 billion, with one surety resident in Sierra Leone.
The second defendant was also granted bail in the sum of NLe5 billion, but with two sureties.
One of the sureties must be resident in Sierra Leone, while the other must own property in Sierra Leone of sufficient value. The property is subject to verification and approval by the court.
The ruling effectively brings the preliminary proceedings to an end and moves the matter to the High Court, where the allegations will be fully tested.
The case underscores that the Magistrate’s decision to commit the accused does not amount to a finding of guilt; the two barristers remain entitled to defend themselves before the High Court.
