THE STATE OF SIERRA LEONE Vs LANSANA DUMBUYA Esq. SECRETARY GENERAY ALL PEOPLES CONGRESS.

THE STATE OF SIERRA LEONE Vs LANSANA DUMBUYA Esq. SECRETARY GENERAY ALL PEOPLES CONGRESS.

By: Israel Ojekeh Parper Snr. 

                   Lansana Dumbuya Esq.

On Thursday 12th February 2026, The  Secretary General of the All Peoples Congress (APC), Barrister and Solicitor of the Sierra Leone Courts Lansana Dumbuya Esq., was charged by the Sierra Leone Police, with three counts of Incitement, insulting conduct, and public insult against the President (Julius Maada Bio). He was remanded in Prison after being refused Bail when he appeared at Magistrates court on 12 February 2026; the charges came about from Dumbuya’s political remarks and chants at the All-Peoples Congress Party Mammoth meeting at the Attouga Mini Stadium, Eastern Freetown on 31 st January 2026.

Let us examine under what Laws or statutes these charges arose?

The legal foundation for each of the three charges brought against Lansana Dumbuya, are based on the publicly reported court filings and the statutes cited in those reports.

Laws under which the charges arise

Based on the information available from credible news sources, the charges against the APC National Secretary General arise under the Public Order Act, 1965 (Act No. 46 of 1965) as amended by the Public Order (Amendment) Act, 1973 (Act No. 15 of 1973).

Let us examine a breakdown of each charge and the corresponding statutory basis.

1: Incitement (Contrary to Law)

The charge of incitement is referenced in the court filings as “incitement contrary to law.”
Although the specific section is not quoted in the reports, incitement in Sierra Leonean criminal law generally arises under common law principles or under general offences provisions in the Public Order Act 1965, relating to conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace. The reporting does not cite a specific section for this count. We may find out later.

2: Insulting Language

This charge is explicitly grounded in: Section 2 of the Public Order Act, 1965 (Act No. 46 of 1965).

This section criminalises the use of insulting, abusive, or threatening language in a public place, particularly where it is likely to provoke a breach of the peace.

This is the specific statute cited directly in the indictment, i.e. the formal accusation.

3: Behaving in an Insulting Manner

This charge arises under: Section 12(a) of the Public Order Act, 1965 (Act No. 46 of 1965) as amended by Section 2 of the Public Order (Amendment) Act, 1973 (Act No. 15 of 1973).

This statutory provision criminalises insulting behaviour in a public place, especially when directed at a public authority or likely to disturb public order.

This is also very clearly cited in the court filings. 

4: Additional Context

So far, the reports confirm that the charges stem from the political remarks and chants made at the APC “Mammoth Meeting” at the Brima Attouga Mini Stadium on 31 January 2026, where the APC secretary general, Lansana Dumbuya Esq., allegedly encouraged supporters to chant derogatory phrases about the President, which referred to the 2023 elections.
These actions were interpreted by the State as falling within the scope of the Public Order Act’s prohibitions on insulting language and behaviour.

WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN IN PLAIN LANGUAGE?

Let me venture to give a simple Plain‑Language Explanation of the Relevant Sierra Leone Laws

The charges against the APC National Secretary General Lansana Dumbuya Esq., come from the Public Order Act, 1965, as amended in 1973. Here is what each relevant section means in everyday language.

A. Section 2 — Insulting or Abusive Language

What it criminalises:

Using insulting, threatening, or abusive language in a public place in a way that could provoke a breach of the peace.

In Plain‑language this means:  If you use harsh or insulting words (‘bad words’ in Krio) in public, and those words could realistically cause disorder, violence, or public disturbance, you may be committing an offence.

So, what are the Key elements the prosecutors must prove: the prosecution must prove that:

1-      The language was insulting/abusive

2-       It was used in a public place

3-      It was likely to provoke a breach of the peace. 

 B. Section 12(a) — Insulting Behaviour (as amended in 1973)

What it criminalises:

Behaving in an insulting, abusive, or provocative manner in a public place, especially where such behaviour could disturb public order.

In Plain‑language this means:

Even if you do not use specific words, your conduct — gestures, chants, actions — can be criminal if it is insulting and likely to cause public disorder.

 

Here, are the Key elements the prosecutors must prove:

1 - The behaviour was insulting or provocative.

2 - It occurred in a public place

3 - It was likely to disturb public order.

 

C. Incitement (This is a Common Law Offence)

Unlike the other two, incitement is not tied to a specific section of the Public Order Act.

What it criminalises, are the following:

1 - Encouraging, persuading, or provoking others to commit an offence.

In Plain‑language meaning: If you urge a crowd or individuals to break the law — even if they do not actually do it — you can be charged with incitement.

Key elements which the prosecutors must prove are:

1 - The accused encouraged others to commit an offence.

2 - The encouragement was intentional.

3 - The offence encouraged is itself unlawful.

In the case of the APC Secretary General, Lansana Dumbuya, the Sierra Leone Police / the State alleges that the chants and remarks at the APC Mammoth meeting, encouraged supporters to engage in conduct considered unlawful under the Public Order Act 1965 as amended in 1973.

 

Now, let us Compare what obtains so far, with International Free‑Speech Standards: How does the actions of the Police/State compare with international best Free-Speech Standards?

To understand the tension, it will help to compare Sierra Leone’s Public Order Act with global norms.

A. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

Sierra Leone is a party to the ICCPR.   Article 19 — Freedom of Expression

Protects:

1 - Political speech

2 - Criticism of public officials

3 - Peaceful dissent

There are four (4) Restrictions to be observed!

1 - Provided by law

2 - Necessary

3 - Proportionate

4 - For legitimate aims (public order, national security, etc.)

So, how does the Sierra Leone Public Order Act compare to international standards? Shortfalls:

1 - Broad and vague language (“insulting”, “abusive”, “provocative”) is generally discouraged in international law because it can be used to suppress political speech.

2 - Criminalising “insults” against public officials is considered incompatible with Article 19 by the UN Human Rights Committee.

3 - Many countries have repealed similar “insult laws” because they chill political expression.

 

B. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR)

Article 9 — Freedom of Expression, Protects the right to express opinions within the law.

 Si, most African Courts and Commission/jurisprudence:

1 - Criminal defamation and insult laws are viewed as disproportionate.

2 - Public officials must tolerate a higher degree of criticism.

 

C. Comparative Jurisdictions: Examples.

National     Status of “insulting the president” laws              

Ghana     -  Repealed “insult laws” in 2001

Kenya.     - Courts have struck down similar provisions              

South Africa - Strong constitutional protection for political speech              

UK.        - Public Order Act focuses on threatening or abusive conduct, not mere insults              

The Trend now is that Modern democracies are moving away from criminalising political insults.

 

SO, WHAT DEFENCES ARE OPEN TO THE ACCUSED?

Likely Defences Available to Lansana Dumbuya

Below I will examine the strongest and most plausible defences, grouped into substantive, constitutional, and procedural categories.

1 Substantive Defences (Focusing on the Elements of the Offence)

The defence team must argue that the prosecution cannot prove the legal ingredients of the charges.

A. The Words or Conduct Were Not “Insulting” Within the Meaning of the Act

The Public Order Act uses vague terms like insulting, abusive, and provocative. Lansana Dumbuya and his legal team can argue that:

1        Political chants at a partisan rally/meeting are normal political expression, not “insults” in the criminal sense.

2        The words were not directed at an individual personally, but at a political office or political situation with particular reference to the unsettled 2023 elections results.

3        The interpretation of “insult” must be strict and narrow, not subjective or politically influenced.

Courts all over the world often require a high threshold for criminal insult.

 

B. There was no Likelihood of a Breach of the Peace, at the   event.

Both Section 2 and Section 12(a) require that the language or behaviour be likely to provoke a breach of the peace.

The defence lawyers should argue that:

1-      The rally/ mammoth meeting was peaceful.

2-      No violence occurred.

3-      The crowd did not react in a disorderly way.

4-      The State cannot rely on hypothetical or speculative risks.

5-      Political rallies/meetings worldwide, routinely involve chanting and slogans — this is not inherently disorderly.

The prosecution must show beyond reasonable doubt, a REAL LIKELIHOOD OF DISORDER. If they cannot do so, that charge collapses and must be dropped.

 

C. The Conduct Was Not “Incitement”!

For incitement, the State must prove:

1-      Intent to encourage others to commit an offence.

2-      Actual encouragement of a specific unlawful act.

The defence lawyers must argue/emphasise that:

1-      The chants were political slogans, not instructions to commit crimes.

2-      There was no call to violence, no call to riot, no call to break the law.

3-      The prosecution cannot identify which offence the accused allegedly encouraged.

4-      The crowd did not act unlawfully.

This is defence is very important because incitement requires clear, intentional encouragement.

2 - Constitutional Defences (Freedom of Expression)

The following are now the most potent arguments in a modern democratic context. For Sierra Leone:

A. Section 25 of the 1991 Constitution — Freedom of Expression

The defence team can argue that:

1-      Political speech is the highest form of protected expression.

2-      Criticism of the President is not a crime in a democratic society.

3-      Criminalising political chants violates the constitutional guarantee of free expression.

4-      Any restriction must be justifiable in a democratic society — most courts in most jurisdictions normally put a high bar in this context, and Courts in Africa are now increasingly striking down “insult laws” on constitutional grounds.

B. International Human Rights Law (ICCPR & African Charter)

Sierra Leone is bound by:

1-      ICCPR Article 19

2-      African Charter Article 9

Both protect political expression and discourage criminal sanctions for “insults” against public officials.

Lansana Dumbuya’s legal defense team’s argument must strongly argue that:

1-      The Public Order Act provisions are overbroad, vague, and disproportionate.

2-      Criminalising political criticism violates Sierra Leone’s international obligations.

3-      The President, as a public figure, must tolerate greater scrutiny and criticism.

As a member of the Commonwealt, Sierra Leone’s Courts often consider Commonwealth and other international law jurisdictions when interpreting constitutional rights. So the defence must tap into this.

3 - Procedural and Evidential Defences.

These challenge the fairness or legality of the process.

A. Lack of Proper Mens Rea (Intent)

The defence lawyers can argue:

1-     Dumbuya did not intend to provoke disorder.

2-     His intent was political mobilisation, not incitement.

3-     The prosecution must prove intent beyond reasonable doubt.

 

B. Selective or Politically Motivated Prosecution

This is a sensitive but purely legitimate defence:

1-      The law is being applied selectively against opposition figures.

2-      Similar statements by ruling‑party supporters are not prosecute.

3-      This violates principles of equality before the law and non- discrimination.

Whilst some Courts may not acquit solely on this basis, it does strengthen constitutional arguments.

 

C. Abuse of Process

If the defence team can show that:

1-      The charges were brought for political purposes,

2-      The process is being used to silence opposition, and that

3-      The prosecution is oppressive or unfair,

then the court may be obliged to stay the proceedings.

 

D. Insufficient Evidence

The defence team can also challenge:

1-      The accuracy of recording,

2-      The context of the statements,

3-      The interpretation of the chants,

4-      The reliability of witnesses,

If the evidence is weak or ambiguous, the charges may fail.

4 - Public Interest Defence.

Lansana Dumbuya’s defence team can also argue that the

1-      Criminal prosecution of political speech is not in the public interest.

2-      The matter could be addressed through political dialogue, not criminal law.

3-      The State should not use criminal sanctions to police political rhetoric.

This is necessary and persuasive in fragile democracies, seeking to avoid political tension and social unrest.

5 -  Defence Based on the Nature of Political Speech

Courts worldwide recognise:

1-      Political speech is often robust, emotional, and hyperbolic.

2-      It should not be judged by the same standards as private insults.

3-      Political rallies are spaces for expressive freedom, not criminal liability.

This defence reframes the entire context of the rally or meeting.

——————————————————————————

I WILL NOW TURN TO LEGAL DECISIONS - CASE LAW CITATIONS IN BOTH SIERRA LEONE AND MOSTLY UK THAT MAY BE RELEVANT TO THIS CASE: The State of Sierra vs Lansana Dumbuya Esq.

In matters involving insulting language, insulting behaviour, breach of the peace, and incitement, courts in Sierra Leone and England have developed a body of case law that can be persuasive or directly relevant to the issues raised in the Lansana Dumbuya matter.

Below is a structured set of relevant case citations, divided into:

1-      A. Sierra Leone cases,

2-      B. English (common‑law) cases,

3-      C. How each case helps the defence.

 

A - SIERRA LEONE CASE LAW

1. Baindu Kanna Case (Magistrates’ Court, Kenema, 2024)

Citation: Court Orders Villager to Pay NLe 600 or Serve Four Months in Jail (Magistrates’ Court No. 3, Kenema, 13 Dec 2024) ¹

Relevance:

(a)    Defendant convicted of abusive language, public insult, and insulting conduct under the same Public Order Act provisions.

(b)    Court emphasised:

o   The prosecution must prove the words were insulting and

o   Likely to provoke a breach of the peace.

(c)    Shows the threshold for conviction and the type of evidence required.

Defence use:

1-      Demonstrates that courts require clear, direct, personal insults and proof of likely breach of peace.

2-      Rally chants directed at a political office, not a private individual, may not meet this threshold.

 

2. Sierra Leone Legal Information Institute (SierraLII) Judgments

Although the search results list recent cases, it does not show up any case directly concerning insulting language. However, SierraLII is the authoritative repository for Sierra Leone case law. ²

Defence use:

1-      SierraLII can be used to locate older cases on breach of peace, public order, and constitutional interpretation.

2-      Particularly useful for arguments on proportionality, freedom of expression, and abuse of process.

B - ENGLISH (COMMON‑LAW) CASES

Because Sierra Leone inherited the common‑law tradition, English cases are still persuasive authority, especially on:

(a)    Insulting words

(b)    Breach of the peace

(c)    Public‑order offences

(d)    Incitement

(e)    Freedom of expression

Here are the most relevant examples:

1. R v Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall, ex parte Central Electricity Generating Board [1982] QB 458

Principle:
Breach of the peace requires actual or imminent violence, not mere offensive or insulting words.

Defence use:

(a)    Supports argument that no breach of peace was likely at the APC rally.

(b)    Political chants alone cannot satisfy the threshold.

2. R v Howell [1982] QB 416

Principle:
Defines breach of the peace as requiring:

(a)    Harm,

(b)    Threat of harm, or

(c)    Fear of harm.

Defence use:

(a)    Reinforces that insulting language alone is insufficient.

(b)    No violence occurred at the rally.

3. Brutus v Cozens [1973] AC 854 (House of Lords)

Principle:

(a)    The meaning of “insulting” is a question of fact, not law.

(b)    Courts must consider context, audience, and social norms.

Defence use:

(a)    Political rallies involve robust speech.

(b)    What is “insulting” in private may not be insulting in political context.

4. Redmond‑Bate v DPP [1999] EWHC Admin 733

Principle:

(a)    Freedom of expression protects even offensive, shocking, or disturbing speech.

(b)    Police cannot restrict speech merely because others may react badly.

Defence use:

(a)    Strong authority for political speech protection.

(b)    Criminalising chants violates democratic norms.

5. R v Marlow [1997] Trim LR 897

Principle:
Incitement requires intentional encouragement of a specific offence.

Defence use:

(a)    No evidence that Dumbuya intended to encourage unlawful acts.

(b)    Political chanting ≠ incitement.

6. DPP v Orum [1989] 1 WLR 88

Principle:
Insulting words must be directed at a person and likely to provoke immediate violence.

Defence use:

(a)    Chants directed at a political office, not a private individual.

(b)    No immediate violence occurred.

 

C - HOW THESE CASES HELP THE DEFENCE

1. They raise the threshold for “insulting”

(a)    Brutus v Cozens shows that context matters.

(b)    Political rallies are high‑tolerance environments.

2. They limit “breach of the peace”

(a)    Howell and Devon & Cornwall require real or imminent violence.

(b)    No such violence occurred.

3. They protect political speech

(a)   Redmond‑Bate is powerful: offensive speech is still protected.

4. They narrow incitement

(a)    Marlow requires intent to encourage a specific crime.

(b)    No such intent is evident.

5. They support proportionality

(a)   English courts emphasise that criminal law should not be used to police political expression.

 

D - SUMMARY TABLE

Issue	Sierra Leone Case	English Case	Defence Benefit
Meaning of “insulting”	Kanna Case	Brutus v Cozens	Context matters: political speech protected
Breach of peace	Kanna Case	Howell; Devon & Cornwall	Requires real threat of violence
Incitement	—	R v Marlow	Intent must be proven
Freedom of expression	—	Redmond‑Bate	Offensive political speech is protected
Double punishment	—	—	Supports proportionality arguments

E -CONCLUSION

There are strong, relevant, persuasive authorities from both Sierra Leone and England that support:

1-      A narrow interpretation of “insulting”

2-      A high threshold for breach of peace

3-      Strong protection for political speech

4-      Strict requirements for incitement

5-      Concerns about proportionality and fairness

These cases significantly strengthen the defence’s position.

 

Author: Israel Ojekeh Parper Snr. BSc(Hons); ACIB; AFA; Grad.Dip (Ed); PGCE; DipTLLS, MBIM, MREconS. (Lecturer in Further and Higher Education; Author, Community Relations and Musician.