THE STATE Vs ZAINAB SHERIFF: A POSTSCRIPT!
THERE IS NO DENAL THAT ZAINAB SHERIFF SAID WHAT IS SAID, but what she said, (using the word “KILL” in her less than 2 minutes rambling speech at the Attouga Stadium on 3st January 2026), was in the context of the ‘State taking hard methods for anyone who steal elections, through the use of Capital punishment i.e. “ the death penalty” as was used in cases of treason. Beginning her statement Zainab Sheriff alluded to petty thieves who when caught are beaten and and like those who had breach the constitution and/or committed treason someyimes killed (by hanging or firing squad). If such people are punished in that way, then, equating ‘stealing or rigging’ an election in her mind are also breaches of the constitution and they (the riggers or those that steal elections) should also be subjected to the same punishment, and not only the perpetrators but their families as well, for it is wrong to cheat eight (8) million [Sierra Leone] people and try to get away, ‘scotch free’. Zainab was suggesting a a very stiff penalty in this regard - words strong enough and emotionally charged.
THE ORDEAL
The prosecution had played a hard ball by isolating the word “KILL” from the gist/context and had framed their case with deep emphasis on the word “KILL” rather than the full meaning and interpretation of her rants, which (as she said in her statement from the dock), was "protecting the constitution" and not in anyway trying to incite anyone to do violence, as she herslef is not a violent person. Indeed, no one had come up or made any complaint that they were so incited orvthreatened. Even the Police witness in ciurt, under cross examination, under oath stated that he was not incited. Zainab had used the conditional "IF” throughout that very short speech. “If anyone steals election….”; this was pointing to the future …. he/she is also committing treason and likewise, “if” found guilty should be punished by the State [using the Death penalty] as in the cases of treason: they should be killed [either by hanging or firing squad - the States' method up to recently]. She was not suggesting mob- justice, outright violence by the ordinary citizen to rise up and attack the ‘riggers’ or election thieves and her reference to Foday Sankoh was to recall the outcome of his past evil treasonous acts that had resulted in the foregone 11 years war of which way had been a victim.
Yes, one may say her words were hash and emotionally charged by the political atmosphere and excitable environmental conditions of a political rally where strong/tough words and songs are a quite common factor. But clearly, from the full context and emotion, it is noticeably clear that her mind was not directed to any outbreak of violence; that was not possible in the situation at that very moment and using the word “kill” had no effect because No one was attacked, she was very general in her statement and she did not call any names.
Apart from all that, it must be remembered that SIERRA LEONE PARLIAMENT HAD in recent times, REPEALED THE DEATH PENALTY SINCE 2021! Therefore, Zainab’s hash suggestion or recommendation [for the State] to “KILL” anyone who steals/rigs any election [in the future – not past elections] has no effect. Hence the “IF” in her short wild speech. That was no threat whatsoever! Whom was she threatening? No one said he/she was, and the 2 months imprisonment for count 2 “using threatening language “is a very clear indication that even the magistrate Jah did not believe there were any threats. He slammed her with TWO MONTHS JAIL FOR “THREATENING” and Four years for “INCITEMENT”!
But the Magistrate has made a very grave legal error or an oversight because NO ONE CAN BE GUILTY OF INCITEMENT OF AN OFFENSE WHICH IS LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO CARRY OUT (in this Zainab’s case), BY THE STATE THROUGH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT – either by hanging or by firing squad! THIS IS NOW IMPOSSIBLE AS THE DEATH PENALTY IS NO LONGER IN OUR SIERRA LEONE STATUTES – IT HAS BEEN REPEALED!
Zainab Sheriff’s suggestion has been deemed and interpreted by the Inspector General of Police as incitement and prosecuted for a crime that is impossible to be carried out. The Magistrate’ decision to convict Zainab Sheriff is a GRAVE ERROR IN LAW! He stated that the Prosecution proved their case beyond reasonable doubt. BUT DID THEY?
ONE CANNOT BE GUILTY OF INCITEMENT IF THE ACT TO BE DONE (Killing [by the State] for stealing election – whether future or recent past) IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY! IT IS ONLY THE STATE THAT CAN KILL LEGALLY BY THE DEATH PENALTY AND AS EVERYONE KNOWS, THE DEATH PENALTY NO LONGER EXIST IN SIERRA LEONE LAWS: IT HAS BEEN REPEALED! DID MAGISTRATE MUSTAPHA BRIMA JAH CONSIDER THAT IMPOSSIBILITY BEFORE COMING TO HIS JUDGEMENT?
The Magistrate (and the defense) should have considered the established principle in the case of R v WHITEHOUSE, that a defendant cannot be guilty of inciting a crime that is legally impossible to commit especially now that the Death Penalty is no longer in our Statute Books, Zainab Sheriff’s rhetorical call for “lethal punishment” for election thieves and riggers was a call FOR A LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY. Judicial best practice today shows that many other jurisdictions treat and view such speeches as “political puffery” rather than a functional criminal directive.
The Prosecutor Y I Sesay, rebuttal to the defense pointing out there is no complainant as no one was incited,
It was highly noticeable that the prosecution relied on the 1881 English Case of R v Most arguing that incitement can be addressed to “the world at large” through a public rally. However, modern jurisprudence has grown wary of such “general “incitement charges as can be seen from the R v WHITEHOUSE case above which held that a defendant cannot be guilty of inciting a crime that is legally impossible to commit “!
One could view this argument through the lens of contract law in the Carroll v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1863) case, that for a public statement to be treated as a serious commitment, there must be an “extra” sign of sincerity – like the deposit of £1000 in the company bank which the offered can get should the promise by the company failed. Zainab Sheriff’s speech lacked any such “extra” preparation; it was a high-stake political theater, and NOT A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY!
A Tale of Two Standards
The most alarming aspect of this conviction is the asymmetry of justice. If Sheriff’s call for extreme punishment constitutes "incitement," the same law must apply to state actors. Recently, the Anti-Corruption Commissioner- made public calls for the return of the death penalty for financial crimes—a statement functionally identical to Zainab Sheriff’s
Furthermore, when high-ranking⁸ officials suggest at rallies that opposition supporters "will be dead in the morning," they do so from a position of actual command over state security forces. When the law is used to jail a 27-year-old mother for "incitement" while ignoring "stone-cold threatening language" from those in power, it ceases to be a shield for the public and becomes a weapon for the incumbent government
Furthermore, when high-ranking officials suggest at rallies that opposition supporters "will be dead in the morning," they do so from a position of actual command over state security forces. When the law is used to jail a 27-year-old mother for "incitement" while ignoring "stone-cold threatening language" from those in power, it ceases to be a shield for the public and becomes a weapon for the incumbent governmen
A Violation of Universal Human Rights.
Zainab Sheriff’s case is now a matter of significant international concern. Her treatment raises serious questions under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 19), which protects speech that may "offend, shock, or disturb" the state. The disparity is stark: while APC Secretary General Lansana Dumbuya was granted bail and faces an ongoing trial for "shaming" the President with local songs, Sheriff was denied bail seven times before her rapid sentencing.
For a first-time offender and mother of two young children, a consecutive sentence.
of over four years is seen by many activists as "manifestly excessive". This creates a “chilling effect”.
designed to sideline a charismatic female leader who dared to challenge the symbolic authority of the First Family through her anthem, "Di Mami Na Power"
Conclusion: The Scales of Justice
Ultimately, the judiciary faces a defining choice. It can continue to uphold a selective application of public order laws, or it can reaffirm its role as a guardian of the constitution. As calls for a Presidential Pardon grow, it is clear that true national stability is not found in the silence of a prison cell, but in a justice system that is blind to political affiliation and unwavering in its protection of human rights. Zainab Sheriff’s defiance has now moved from the rally stadium to the annals of history; it remains to be seen if the courts will choose suppression or progress.
Comments