Ms ZAINAB SHERIFF V THE STATE OF SIERRA LEONE: "FREEDOM", "JUSTICE" AND THE MISSING POINT OF "UNITY"! (By Israel Ojekeh Parper Snr.)

FREE ZAINAB SHERIFF: SHE HAS NO CASE TO ANSWER.

          Ms. Zainab Sheriff - The accused 

1. Opening Position.

The public deserves clarity and honesty: the charges brought against Ms. Zainab Sheriff are not only legally weak, they are fundamentally inconsistent with the principles of fairness, proportionality, and democratic expression. She is charged with INCITEMENT (contrary to law) and using Threatening Language contrary to section 30 (1) Public Order Act 1965. She had appeared in Court No 1 in Freetown presided over by Magistrate Mustapha Brima Jah, an ex soldier turned lawyer. Bail has twice been refused on the her two appearances in his court. 

Prior to the criminal charges, the Political Parties Regulation Commission (PPRC), had imposed an Administrative Fine of NLe150,000 on her Political Party for the same statement holding the party responsible for a breach by its member. 

This case is not about protecting public order — it is about whether the State can criminalise harmless political speech that named no one, threatened no one, and caused no disturbance.

This case questions whether the criminal prosecution following an administrative sanction constitutes substantive double punishment; whether the denial of bail and remand order comply with the constitutional and statutory standards and, whether the prosecution meets the requirements of necessity, proportionality, and fair trial guarantees under domestic and international law. 

This case brings into focus, the relevant provisions of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone, (as amended by 2001), especially, [Sections 17 (1); 18(1); 20(1); 23(4); and Section 25(1);]  the Public    Order Act 1965  ( as amended  in 2020 ) section 30(1). The Criminal Procedure Act 2024; section 76(1)(c). and the PPRC Act 2022 alongside applicable Commonwealth jurisprudence on double jeopardy and abuse of power), Delay and fair trial; African Charter Obligations; (Article s 6; 7 and 9); African Commission decisions; ECOWAS Court jurisprudence and European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) case law..

2. What Actually Happened

At a political gathering at the Attouga Mini astadium on 31st January 2026 in Eastern Freetown Ms. Zainab Sheriff made a short, emotional remark when being interviewed by a live on-line blogger. The facts are straightforward: She did not identify any individual. She did not direct her words at any person. She did not threaten any  act that threatened  any person(s) that had the likelihood of resulting  to a breach of the peace. She did not encourage any violence. No one felt fear or intimidation. No disturbance occurred. The event ended peacefully. She made general  statements of factual matters regarding  rigging the 2023 elections which are universally know  already. Yes, she was passionate and emotional, but being so politically and emotionally charged is not in itself criminal.

These facts matter. Public‑order offences require actual or likely disorder. None occurred.

3. Why the Charges Are Unjustified

The prosecution alleges threatening language and incitement. But these offences require: a target;  a specific threatened act; an intention to cause fear and a likelihood of disorder. None of these elements exist: and 'likelihood', does not mean 'possible'!

The Criminal law cannot be used to punish emotion or to silence political participation. Democracy requires space for strong words, passion, and disagreement especially when  such utterances are made at political  gatherings. 

4. The Public‑Order Reality

Public‑order laws exist to prevent violence — not to police political expression. Sierra Leone’s courts have repeatedly held that: political speech is protected; emotional or provocative language is not automatically criminal; and the State prosecutors must show a clear and present danger of disorder.

There was no danger here. No threat. No harm. No breach of the peace. The Magistrate should dismiss this case and save taxpayers money from being waisted further.

5. Comparisons to The Dumbuya case Is Misleading.

      Lansana  Dumbuya Esq. N S G of A P C

Some have attempted to compare this case to the Lansana Dumbuya's matter. That comparison collapses under scrutiny.

Dumbuya: named the one specific individual in his chants;  he made a direct statement about a specific individual and he created a context that the police interpreted as threatening and incitement, even though the charges are being seen as excessive; and within a political rally atmosphere where such comments  against political  opponents are harmless  and commonplace, worldwide. 

Zainab Sheriff: named no one; she threatened no one; and did not encouraged any criminal act; she caused no fear (no one could say he/she was afraid when and after she spoke) and more so, she caused no disturbance, which could have provoked participants to be enraged and evocated a breach of public peace and disorder.

The two cases are not comparable in law or in fact.

6. Double Punishment Concerns.

The PPRC has already sanctioned the party for the same incident for which the State had been compensated by way of the fines levied by the PPRC on the Party to which Zainab is a member: the PPRC relying on the statutory provisions that 'the sin of it's members is the sin of the Party'.

 Now the State seeks to impose criminal punishment on top of administrative punishment: This raises legitimate concerns about:

fairness; proportionality; double punishment. and potential abuse of process. A democracy cannot punish twice for the same conduct and Sierra Leone's constitutional and criminal  law principles recognise the doctrine similar  to double jeopardy.

Yes the PPRC is not a criminal court. It is a regulating body empowered under the Political  Partis Act of 2022 to among other responsibilities, 'enforce discipline'. The FINE of NLE150,000 in the case of Zainab ( and NLe200,000 in Dumbuya's case is an administrative imposition on the Party for the breaches committed by its member (and it is then left with the party to internally sanction that member as this imposed  financial burden on the Political  Party. 

It is argued in some circles that the Administrative process  operates under  different legal  regime from the criminal process, so therefore, they are not considered "double punishment" in the strict sense. Even with that slim distinction, the current situation  (both in Zainab's case and the Lansana Dumbuya's case, the questions of proportionality and fairness are evoked: if (1) the same speech is tge basis for both sanctions; (2) the administrative fine already addressed the harm; and (3) the criminal charges appear selective and/or politically motivated - which such motivation is not new since 2018; and it is evident form the similar concerns raised by Civil Society  groups in past cases involving public criticism of government officials, including earlier incidents involving Ms Zainab Sheriff.

7. Constitutional and Human‑Rights Implications

Sierra Leone’s Constitution protects: freedom of expression;  political participation; assembly and association. If the State as it appears in these two current  cases, (Ms Sheriff's and Dumbuya's) is using the criminal law to punish political speech already addressed by the PPRC, the legal  representatives  for these accused two persons must emphatically stress to the court that their prosecutions are oppressive, unfair and disproportionate. Freedom of expression according to Section 25 of the Republic of Sierra Leone Constitution 1991, protects free speech, (of course, subject to certain limitations). But the statements for which they are charged to court were political expressions, made in an open political rally. The treshhole for 'INCITEMENT ' in both cases of "THREATENING LANGUAGE" in the case of Zainab Sheriff  was not met as far as I can see.  Similar so for Lansana Dumbuya's charges under the Public Order Act of 1965. In his case, Incitement was paired with insulting or threatening language under Section 12(a) of the Public Order Act 1965 as amended by POA 2020.

The constitution  further  guarantees in Section 23(4), the presumption of innocence. [However, critics are known to argue that this dual track provisions in the 1991 Sierra Leone Constitution (sections 25 and 23(4), chills political speech, appears selective, undermines trust in the justice system and creates th e perception of politically motivated prosecutions. But that discussion  is for another time]

The constitution also by section 23(9), provides that no person shall be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been punished. The fines by the PPRC having been  paid in full, Zainab is now being prosecuted based on the same factualfoundation - statements made in a political context. How fair is that? The court must not only examine  the substance of tge case but also the form, for where an administrative penalty and a criminal prosecution arise from the same factual matrix, and target thee same political expression(s) the cumulative effect amount to impermissible double punishment. The drafters  of the constitution had the fairness factor in mind and intended to guard against oppressive multiplicity of sanctions or punishment. 

Procedural fairness must not be to the of the accused persons. 

The refusal of Bail guaranteed under the law: Criminal Procedure  Act 2024, section 76(1)(c), requires bail be granted for non-violent offences unless the prosecution provides compelling reasons supported by an affidavit. This must be strictly hadhired to, especially for non-violent speech offences, which in both cases of Zainab- three times as at yesterday 4th March 2026 and as it were in Dumbuya's case also. In his case, the prosecution filed an affidavit but simultaneously requested an adjournment because they were not yet properly prepared yet, bail was refused on the first appearance in court. This is unfair  to the accused.

The second refusal hung on the defense not being  sufficient time to study and prepare their case as the prosecution, though service was within the legal time, but the time of receipt by the defence team was too short for the case to proceed: the applied for bail in the mean time, but Magistrate  Mustapha Brima Jah refused bail for the second time. Which led to a lot of activities, to say the least.

Now we see similar unfairness in Zainab's case where bail has been refused  three (3) times for procedural reasons - gross unfairness as she continues to languish in Prison for another  seven (7) days before her next appearance in court. This situation  is not only disproportionate, but it is inconsistent with the presumption of innocence,  and politically influenced, which is bad for our democracy.

These two cases must ignight lawyers especially  the authorities of the Bar Association and the Lawyers Society (and other Legal institutions  - including the Universities Law schools) the veracity of the boundaries between political speech and criminal  lianility and also. the relationship between the PPRC's regulatory powers, and the criminal justice system.

Regional human‑rights standards require: necessity; proportionality; minimal impairment.

Criminal prosecution in these cases here, fails all three tests. It risks chilling political speech and undermining public confidence in the justice system.

8. Why This Matters for the Public?

These two case are bigger than just the personsons charged.. They are  about whether ordinary citizens can speak passionately about politics without fear of criminalisation. They are  about whether administrative sanctions quietly become criminal prosecutions. They are also, about whether the law is applied consistently, fairly, and without political colouring.

Applicable Law considered in my discussion.

A- Sierra Leone Constitution 1991 (as amended to 2021): 

Section 17(1)- protection from inhuman or   degrading treatment;

Section 18(1)- personal liberty. 

Section  20(1)- protection from arbitrary arrest and detention.

Section 23(4)- presumption of innocence

Section 25(1)- freedom of expression 

B- Public Order Act 1965 (as amended to 2020)

Section 12 (a) - threatening, abusive, or insulting language likely to provoke a breach of the peace.

Though the 2020 amendment repealed Part V of the 1965 Act on criminal  libel, it retained section 12(a).

C. Criminal Procedure  Act 2024

     Section 76(1)(c) - presumption of bail fornon- violent offences unless compelling reasons exist.

D. Political Parties Act 2022

      Empowers the PPRC to impose administrative sanctions on political parties for breaches of political conduct rules.

I have referred to the some Case law decisions bothering on the situations inthese two cases:

1. Sierra Leone Case Law. 

(a) Baidu Kanna Case (Magistrates' Coutr Kenema, 2024).

Cittation: Court Orders Villager to pay Nle600 or serve four months in jail, (Magistrate Court No 3, Kenema, 13 December 2024) This case delta with insulting and breach of the peace. Court  emphasised prosecution must prove words were insulting and likely to provoke a breach of the peace. This confirms threshold and type of evidence required. Defence though required clear, direct, personal insults and proof of likely breach of prece, were not so persuasive as there was a targeted individual.  Doubtful  if political  rally chants not directed to a dpecific person but made generally  as in Zainab Sheriff's case, or one directed at a political official who is not a private individual,  may meet this threshold. 

2. English (Common Law) Cases, inheritance from Common law traditions could be persuasive authorities for: insulting words; Breach of the peace; Public-order offences; incitement; and  freedom of expression.

R. v Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall, ex parte Central Electricity Generating Board [1982] QB 458 - breach op peace requires  actual imminent violence, not mere offensive or insulting  words. Zainab Sheriff and Lansana Dumbuya's counsels should emphase to the court that no breach of the peace happens or likely  to have happened at the APC political Party mammoth meeting on 31st January 2026.

R v Howell (1982) QB 416 - this case reinforces that insulting language alone is insufficient- there was no harm, threat if harm, or fear of harm. At the Attouga Mini Stadium,  none of these happened.

Brutus v Cozens (1973) AC 854 (House of Lords) now Supreme  Court. 

The principle was made clear: the meaning of "insulting" is a question of fact not one of law.  Courts must consider context, audience and social norms. Ms Sheriff and Mr Dumbuya's lawyers  must submit to tge Court that political rallies involve robust speeches and what is insulting  in private may not be insulting in public political context.

Redondo Bates v DPP (1999) EWHC Admin 733

Freedom of expression protects even offensive, shocking,or disturbing speech. Police cannot restrict speech because others may react badly. 

This is a very strong  authority for political  speech or rants or singing protection  and the defense  counsels must utilise this principle. 

R. v Marlow (1997) Trim LR 897

Incitement  requires  intentional encouragement of a specific offence. There is NO evidence that Ms Zainab Sheriff  nor Mr Lansana Dumbuya intended to encourage unlawful acts. Political  chanting is NOT incitement. 

DPP v Orum (1989) 1 WLR 88

Insulting  words must be directed at a person and LIKEKLY TO PROVOKE IMMEDIATE VIOLENCE. 

Defense counsels must clear ly and emphatically afirm to the courts that political chants were  directed at a political  office, and not at a private individual.  No immediate violence occurred.  

Other Commonwealth and International Authorities include: 

Connelly v DPP [1964] AC 1254 (HL)

Prohibites duplication punishment; courts must prevent oppressive prosecutions

R.v. Horseferry Road  Magistrates ' Court, ex parte Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42 

Courts may stay proceedings where prosecution  is abusive or oppressive.

R. v Z [2000] 2 AC 483 

Clarifies limits to double  jeopardy and emphasises fairness and proportionality.  

Delay ,Fairness and Bail: let us look to the case:

Attorney-General's Reference  (No 2 of 2001) [2003] UKHL 68 

UNREASONABLE DELAY UNDERMINDS FAIRNESS AND MAY JUSTIFY RELIER . The court must pay attention to this authority. 

These two cases  also  touch on provisions of The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights: especially, Article 6 - protection from arbitrary  detention; Article 7 - fair trial and 

Articles 9 - freedom of expression.

They also touch on cases dealt with in the African Commission Jurisprudence such as:

Media Rights Agenda v Nigeria (2000) AHRLR 200 - political  speech receives heightened protection 

Constitutional Rights Project v Nigeria (1999) - criminal sanctions for speech must meet strict necessity and proportionality tests.

We could  not leave out our Good Old ECOWAS Court of Justice in this analysis: so let us look to

Koraou v Niger (2008) ECW/CCJ/JUD/06/08

disproportionate sanctions was examined and in

 SERAP v Nigeria (2010) - criminalisation of expression must meet strict proportionality test.

Finally for persuasive authorities that may be cited for these two cases of Zainab Sheriff  and Lansana  Dumbuya,  the European Court of Human Rights  decided the adjudged the following two cases among  others:

Sunday Times  v UK (1979) 2 EHRR 245 - political  speech enjoys the highest level of protection  

 Lingens v Austria (1986) 8 EHRR 407 - PUBLIC FIGURES MUST TOLERATE GREATER SCRUTINY.!

9. Conclusion

The charges against Ms. Zainab Sheriff are disproportionate, unsupported by evidence, and inconsistent with constitutional and regional standards. They should be withdrawn or Magistrate Musthpha Brima Jah  must save taxpayers money, by dismissing this case forthwith. 

The English Court cases raise the threshold for "insulting"; Limits "breach of the peace", Protect political speech; Narrow down incitement  definition; and support proportionality and fairness. 

Magistrate Mustapha  Brima Jar must seriously  consider that Sierra Leone’s democracy is stronger when the law protects speech, not when it punishes harmless political expression..