Proceedings continued on Thursday, 5 March 2026, in the matter of Inspector General of Police v Lansana Dumbuya, as the prosecution presented additional witnesses before the court.
During the hearing, the prosecution called its second and third witnesses, both of whom provided testimony detailing their involvement in the investigation and events surrounding the case. Each witness was led in examination-in-chief by the prosecution and subsequently cross-examined by the defence counsel.
The second prosecution witness (PW2), Sahr Foday Lebbie, a Detective Police Sergeant attached to the Cyber Unit at the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Headquarters, explained his professional role within the police’s digital forensic unit. According to his testimony, his duties include examining electronic devices, extracting digital data, and transcribing relevant information that may serve as evidence in criminal investigations.
PW2 told the court that as part of the investigation into the case involving the defendant, Lansana Dumbuya, he was tasked with analysing a video recording allegedly captured during a political gathering held at Brima Attouga Mini Stadium. The witness explained the procedures followed in obtaining and processing the digital material, noting that the Cyber Unit carefully reviewed and prepared the footage for presentation in court.
At the request of the prosecution, the video recording was played in open court before the presiding magistrate and those present in the courtroom. The footage, according to the prosecution, shows the defendant addressing a crowd at the stadium during a political gathering. After the playback, the prosecution formally applied to tender the video as evidence.
The court subsequently admitted the video recording into evidence as an exhibit. In addition to the video itself, the prosecution also tendered a screenshot photograph extracted from the footage along with other supporting documents related to the digital analysis conducted by the Cyber Unit. These materials were also admitted by the court as part of the prosecution’s exhibits.
Following PW2’s testimony, the prosecution called its third witness (PW3), Francis Momodu Tommy, an Assistant Superintendent of Police attached to the Ross Road Police Station.
In his testimony, PW3 informed the court that he was among approximately 150 police officers deployed to provide security at the Brima Attouga Mini Stadium during a large gathering organized by the All People’s Congress. The event, described as a “mammoth meeting,” reportedly attracted a large crowd of party supporters and members of the public.
According to PW3, while performing his duties at the venue, he personally observed the defendant addressing attendees during the gathering. He told the court that during the speech, the defendant allegedly asked members of the crowd to repeat a chant after him. PW3 testified that the phrase sung by the crowd was “Maada Bio tiffy tiffy.”
The witness stated that hearing the chant caused him personal distress because it was directed at Julius Maada Bio, whom he described in court as his superior and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. He further told the court that the incident stood out to him because of his professional role as a police officer serving under the authority of the President.
Defence counsel subsequently cross-examined both witnesses, questioning elements of their testimonies and the circumstances surrounding the collection and interpretation of the evidence presented in court. The cross-examination sought to challenge aspects of the prosecution’s narrative, including the handling of the digital evidence and the interpretation of events at the political gathering.
After the cross-examinations concluded, the prosecution informed the court that it did not intend to re-examine either witness.
With the testimony of PW3 completed, the prosecution formally closed its case, having presented a total of three witnesses during the course of the trial. The prosecution also confirmed that it had tendered both documentary and electronic exhibits, including the video recording and related materials, to support its case against the defendant.
Following the closure of the prosecution’s case, counsel for the defence requested a two-week adjournment from the court. The defence explained that the additional time would allow them to adequately prepare their case and organise the witnesses and evidence they intend to present in response to the prosecution’s claims.
The prosecution indicated that it had no objection to the defence’s request for an adjournment. After considering the application, the magistrate granted the request and adjourned the matter until 19 March 2026. On that date, the defence is expected to formally open its case and begin presenting its evidence before the court.
Meanwhile, the bail previously granted to the defendant, Lansana Dumbuya, remains in effect pending the continuation of the trial. The case is expected to resume later this month as the court proceeds to hear the defence’s arguments.
