By Fatima Kpaka
Two Barristers; Maurice Jenner Mohamed Seisay and John Mans, are standing trial before Magistrate Mustapha Brima Jah of Pademba Road Court No. 1 in Freetown on allegations of conspiracy to defraud and obtaining property by false pretences.
The accused are facing two counts under Section 32(1) of the Larceny Act 1916.
According to the particulars of the offence, 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 intent to defraud.
The second count alleges that the accused obtained three Toyota 4Runner vehicles from Bockarie Conteh, valued at US$114,000, on the representation that payment would be made within 30 working days, a representation the prosecution alleges they knew to be false.
When the charges were read and explained to the accused, no plea was taken as the matter is currently at the committal proceedings stage.
During the proceedings, State Prosecutor Yusuf Isaac Sesay, Esq., raised an objection concerning the defense’s notice of intention to cross-examine prosecution witnesses.
He argued that the defence had failed to properly comply with an earlier order of the court and the relevant provisions of the law.
Defence counsel Jessie M. Jengo, Esq., disagreed, telling the court that the defence had complied with the requirement. He said a notice of intention to cross-examine witnesses was filed on August 5, 2026, followed by another notice on August 10, 2026.
Counsel further argued that the Criminal Procedure Act No. 8 of 2024 does not prescribe a specific format for such a notice and maintained that the defence had made efforts to comply with the court’s directive.
In his ruling, Magistrate Jah said he had carefully considered the submissions of both the prosecution and the defence.
The Magistrate observed that the defence application was properly filed in the court file, although he could not ascertain whether it had been served on the prosecution.
He explained that the proceedings before him constituted a preliminary investigation, or judicial investigation, which is concerned primarily with determining the sufficiency of evidence rather than establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Magistrate Jah also noted that preliminary proceedings are time-bound and, in the circumstances, exercised his discretion to dispense with the defense’s non-compliance.
He subsequently ordered the prosecution to make available, produce and tender the written statements and other relevant materials for the continuation of the committal proceedings.
The matter was adjourned to August 20, 2026, for further proceedings.
