By Mamajah Jalloh
FREETOWN, Sierra Leone — Magistrate Mustapha Brima Jah of Pademba Road Court No. 1 has ordered the defence to tender written statements and other relevant materials in the ongoing fraud case involving two barristers accused of allegedly defrauding a businessman of property valued at US$114,000.
The accused, 34-year-old Maurice Jenner Mohamed Sesay and 35-year-old John Mans, appeared before the court on Monday, August 17, 2026, facing two counts of conspiracy to defraud and obtaining property by false pretences, contrary to Section 32(1) of the Larceny Act 1916.
According to the particulars of the alleged offences, between November 1 and 30, 2023, at Harding Sesay and Partners Law Firm, No. 49 Dundas Street, Western Area, Freetown, the accused allegedly conspired with other persons unknown with the intention to defraud.
The second count alleges that the accused obtained three Toyota 4Runner vehicles from Bockarie Conteh, valued at approximately US$114,000, allegedly under the representation that payment would be made within 30 working days, knowing the representation to be false.
The charges were read and explained to the accused, but no plea was taken because the matter is currently at the committal proceedings stage.
Prosecution Raises Objection
During Monday’s proceedings, State Prosecutor Yusuf Isaac Sesay, Esq., raised concerns regarding the defence’s notice of intention to cross-examine prosecution witnesses.
The prosecutor argued that the defence had failed to properly comply with a previous order of the court and relevant provisions of the law.
Defence counsel Jessie M. Jengo, Esq., however, maintained that the defence had complied with the requirements.
Counsel informed the court that a notice of intention to cross-examine witnesses was filed on August 5, 2026, followed by another notice on August 10, 2026.
She further argued that the Criminal Procedure Act No. 8 of 2024 does not prescribe a specific format for such a notice, adding that the defence had made efforts to comply with the court’s directive.
Magistrate Rules on Compliance
In his ruling, Magistrate Jah said he had carefully considered submissions from both the prosecution and defence.
He observed that the defence application was properly filed in the court file, although he could not establish whether it had been served on the prosecution.
The Magistrate explained that the matter before the court was a preliminary or judicial investigation, which focuses on determining whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed, rather than establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
He further noted that preliminary proceedings are time-bound.
In exercising his discretion, Magistrate Jah decided to dispense with the alleged non-compliance by the defence and ordered that the relevant written statements and other materials be produced and tendered during the subsequent committal proceedings.
The matter was adjourned to August 20, 2026, for further proceedings.
