By Mamajah Jalloh
The ongoing alleged theft case involving Abu Bakarr Kabba Mansaray, Ibrahim Ahmed Kargbo, Ibrahim Bangura, Benito Conteh, Mohamed Amara Kamara, Alhassan Kamara, Jacob Gbaya, Mohamed Sahr Tommy, Chernor Amadu Sesay and Abu Mansaray has been sent to the male correctional facility by magistrate Mustapha Brima Jah of Pademba Road Court No.1 in freetown on Monday, 27th July 2026, on five count charges to wit Conspiracy to commit Larceny contrary to law, Larceny, Forgery, Uttering forged document and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice contrary to law.
According to the particulars of offence diverse dates between 1st to 22nd May 2026 at the Queen Elizabeth II Quay Cline Town the western area in freetown all defendants conspired together and with other persons unknown to steal a shipping container with serial number TLLU-2297785 and its contents, then being in the lawful possession and control of the Sierra Leone Ports and Harbours Authority having being detained in connection with an ongoing criminal investigation by the Sierra Leone police.
Count two stated that on the 13th May 2026 at the above place all defendants stole a shipping container with serial number TLLU-2297785 and its contents, then being in the lawful possession and control of the Sierra Leone Ports and Harbours Authority with intent to permanently deprive the Sierra Leone Ports and Harbours Authority of its lawful possession and control of the said shipping container and its contents
Count three further stated that on the 15th May 2026 the ninth defendant with intent to defraud forged a staff identify card purporting it to be a genuine staff identify card issued by Akim and Satu clearing and forwarding Agency intending same to be used as a genuine staff identify card to facilitate the unlawful removal of a shipping container with serial number TLLU 2297785 and it’s contents, the said shipping container having being detained at the Queen Elizabeth II Quay in connection with an ongoing criminal investigation by the Sierra Leone police
Count four revealed that on the above date and place the ninth defendant knowingly and fraudulently uttered as genuine a forged staff identify card of Akim and Satu clearing and forwarding Agency knowingly the same to be forged, with intent to deceive officers of the Sierra Leone Ports and Harbours Authority and thereby facilitates the unlawful removal of a shipping container with serial number TLLU 2297785 and it’s contents, the said shipping container having being detained at the Queen Elizabeth II Quay in connection with an ongoing criminal investigation by the Sierra Leone police.
Count five furthered that on the above date and place all defendants conspired together with other persons unknown to pervert the course of justice by conceding and suppressing material evidence tampering with CCTV footage procuring and using forged documents facilitating the unlawful removal of a shipping container with serial number TLLU 2297785 and it’s contents, the said shipping container having being detained at the Queen Elizabeth II Quay in connection with an ongoing criminal investigation by Sierra Leone police
When the charges were read and explained to the defendant no plea was taken because it is a committal proceedings.
The prosecution led by State Counsel Yusuf Isaac Sesay, while the defendants were represented by a team of defence lawyers, including Maddieu Sesay, Brima Koroma, A. Kamara, C.M.B. Kamara, I. Steven, A. Sesay, S.S. Sillah, S. Tommy, J.M. Gengo and E.A.M. Sam.
During the proceedings, defence counsel challenged the prosecution’s compliance with the disclosure provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2024.
Counsel Maddieu Sesay, appearing for the 1st, 3rd and 9th accused, argued that the prosecution had failed to comply with Sections 112 and 113 of the Act by not serving witness briefings alongside the witness statements and submitted that the absence of those documents deprived the defence of adequate time and information to prepare for the committal proceedings, insisting that the statutory requirements must be fulfilled before the matter could proceed.
Counsel Brima Koroma, representing the 2nd and 4th defendants associated himself with those submissions, argued that the disclosure provisions exist to protect the constitutional rights of accused persons and prevent trial by and maintained that the prosecution must fully comply with the law before the committal process can continue.
Counsel J.M. Gengo, appearing for the 8th, 9th and 10th defendants also adopted the submissions of his colleagues and told the court that the defence was handicapped because it had not received sufficient disclosure to properly assess the prosecution’s case, stressing that fairness demands full compliance with the statutory provisions before committal proceedings commence.
The State Counsel Yusuf Isaac Sesay rejected the defence’s interpretation of the law, arguing that the Criminal Procedure Act itself fixes the timeline for committal proceedings and that the court is only required to inform the accused of that statutory date.
He submitted that the prosecution had complied with Section 112 by serving the witness statements, relevant documents and the list of physical and material exhibits within the time prescribed by law.
Sesay further argued that the prosecution was under no legal obligation to separately itemise its witnesses as suggested by the defence and explained that many of the prosecution’s witnesses are formal police witnesses whose role is to tender statements obtained during the investigation, adding that any issues relating to their evidence could be addressed through cross-examination during the proceedings.
He urged the court to allow the matter to proceed, noting that the accused persons remain in custody and that the prosecution’s witnesses were present and ready to testify within the statutory timeline.
After hearing submissions from both the prosecution and the defence, Principal Magistrate Mustapha Brima Jah ruled that the State should provide the defence with a list of the witnesses it intends to call to enable counsel to adequately prepare for cross-examination.
The matter was adjourned to 31 July 2026 for further committal proceedings, while all ten defendants remained in custody pending their next court appearance.
