THE STATE Vs ZAINAB SHERIFF: JUDGEMENT By Israel Ojekeh PARPER Snr
From Common Law to Cultural Icons: The Selective Sword of “Incitement”
ZAINAB SHERIFF:JAILED 4 YEAR 2 MONTHSThe sentencing of Zainab Sheriff on 14 April 2026 to four years and two months in prison has ignited a fierce debate on the limits of political speech. To understand the gravity of this case, one must first understand what the state is legally required to prove to secure a conviction for incitement.
The Elements of Incitement
Under the traditional legal framework still active in Sierra Leone, the prosecution must prove three core elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
- The Actus Reus: That the defendant performed an act (speech, writing, or gesture) capable of encouraging or persuading another to commit a crime.
- The Mens Rea: That the defendant had the specific intent that the crime be committed.
- Communication: That the message reached its intended audience, even if no crime was ultimately carried out.
The Ghost of English Law and the "World at Large"
The prosecution in the Sheriff case relied heavily on the landmark case of R v Most (1881), which established that incitement does not need to be directed at a specific individual; it can be addressed to "the world at large" through a newspaper or a public speech. They argued that her rally address was a "global" call to violence.
However, modern legal theory has evolved. In 2008, the UK replaced this vague common law with the Serious Crime Act 2007, recognizing that "general" incitement was too often used to silence dissidents. Furthermore, under principles like R v Whitehouse, one cannot legally incite a crime that is an impossibility. Since Sierra Leone abolished the death penalty in 2021, Sheriff’s call for "lethal" state punishment was a call for a legal non-entity—a rhetorical "puff" rather than a functional criminal instruction.
In fact, one could argue through the lens of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] that for a "public" statement to be taken as a serious, binding commitment, there must be evidence of sincerity—such as the "£1000 deposit" in the bank seen in that famous contract case. Sheriff’s speech lacked any such "extra" element of preparation or sincerity; it was political theatre, not a criminal conspiracy.
The "Double Standard" of Rhetoric
The most alarming aspect of this conviction is the asymmetry of justice. Recently, the Anti-Corruption Commissioner made a public call for the return of the death penalty for those who steal state funds—a statement functionally identical to Sheriff’s.
When high-ranking officials, including the President and his Deputy Minister of Information, use language suggesting opposition members "will be dead in the morning," they do so with the weight of the state behind them. When the state ignores "lethal" rhetoric from its own ministers while jailing a 27-year-old mother and entertainer for the same, it ceases to be "Rule of Law" and becomes Rule by Law.
A Violation of Human Rights
Zainab Sheriff’s plight is a significant human rights concern. Her treatment violates the Right to Equality before the Law and the Right to Freedom of Expression (Article 19, UDHR). The disparity between her 4-year sentence and the ongoing, bail-enabled trial of APC Secretary General Lansana Dumbuya suggests a targeted effort to neutralize a defiant female activist who used her hit anthem "Di Mami Na Power" to challenge the symbolic authority of the First Family.
Martyrdom or Silence?
Zainab Sheriff is now a political martyr. Like the Palo Conteh case of 2021—where a "merciful" pardon followed a politically charged conviction—many suspect the government is waiting for a "save face" moment in December to appear compassionate. Until then, the "Mami" remains behind bars, but her voice remains the most powerful melody in the streets of Freetown.
Conclusion: The Scales of Justice and the Pulse of a Nation
Ultimately, the conviction of Zainab Sheriff represents more than a mere legal verdict; it is a profound test of Sierra Leone’s democratic maturity. When the law is used to interpret rhetorical hyperbole as a literal threat—while simultaneously turning a blind eye to identical language from those in the corridors of power—the scales of justice become dangerously unbalanced.
From a legal perspective, the state has pursued a phantom: seeking to punish "incitement" for a punishment (the death penalty) that no longer exists in our statutes. From a humanitarian perspective, the cost of this pursuit is the liberty of a young mother and the silencing of a bold, cultural voice that resonated with the marginalized.
As we look toward the inevitable appeal, the judiciary faces a choice. It can continue to uphold a "chilling" and selective application of the Public Order Act, or it can reaffirm that in a true democracy, "Di Mami Na Power" is not a threat to be jailed, but a voice to be heard. True stability is not found in the silence of the prison cell, but in a justice system that is blind to political colours and clear-eyed in its protection of human rights. Zainab Sheriff’s defiance has now passed from the rally stadium to the annals of history; it is up to the courts to decide if that history will be one of suppression or of progress.
Daughter Of The Ground!
Comments