Two legal practitioners are appearing before the Pademba Road Court No. 1 in Freetown over allegations that they conspired to defraud a businessman of three Toyota 4Runner vehicles valued at US$114,000.
Barristers Maurice Jenner Mohamed Seisay and John Mans are facing two counts of conspiracy to defraud and obtaining property by false pretences under Section 32(1) of the Larceny Act 1916.
The allegations relate to events said to have occurred between November 1 and November 30, 2023, at Harding Sesay and Partners Law Firm, situated at No. 49 Dundas Street in the Western Area of Freetown.
According to the particulars of the first count, the two accused allegedly conspired with other persons who are yet to be identified, with the intention of defrauding the complainant.
The second count alleges that the accused obtained three Toyota 4Runner vehicles from Bockarie Conteh, with a combined stated value of US$114,000. The prosecution claims the vehicles were obtained on the representation that payment would be made within 30 working days.
However, the prosecution alleges that the representation was false and that the accused knew it to be false at the time it was made.
When the allegations were read and explained to the accused persons in court, no plea was taken. The matter is currently before the court at the committal proceedings stage, where the prosecution is required to present sufficient evidence for the case to proceed.
During the latest proceedings, State Prosecutor Yusuf Isaac Sesay, Esq., raised an objection over the defence’s notice of intention to cross-examine prosecution witnesses.
The prosecution argued that the defence had not properly complied with an earlier directive of the court and with the applicable legal requirements governing the proceedings.
However, defence counsel Jessie M. Jengo, Esq., rejected the objection and maintained that the defence had complied with the court’s requirements.
Counsel informed the court that a notice of intention to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses had been filed on August 5, 2026, with another notice subsequently filed on August 10, 2026.
Defence counsel further submitted that the Criminal Procedure Act No. 8 of 2024 does not prescribe a particular format that must be followed when filing such a notice.
He therefore argued that the defence had made reasonable efforts to comply with the court’s earlier directive and that the objection raised by the prosecution should not prevent the matter from proceeding.
In his ruling, Magistrate Mustapha Brima Jah considered the arguments presented by both sides before making a determination on the issue.
The Magistrate observed that the defence application was properly filed and could be found in the court file. However, he said he was unable to establish from the record whether the application had also been served on the prosecution.
Magistrate Jah explained that the proceedings before him constituted a preliminary investigation, also referred to as a judicial investigation. He noted that the purpose of such proceedings is principally to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant the matter proceeding, rather than to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The Magistrate further pointed out that preliminary proceedings are subject to time limitations. Taking the circumstances of the matter into consideration, he exercised his discretion to dispense with the defence’s non-compliance.
Following his ruling, Magistrate Jah directed the prosecution to make available, produce and tender the written statements and other relevant materials required for the continuation of the committal proceedings.
The court’s directive is expected to facilitate the next stage of the proceedings as the prosecution continues to present the evidence upon which the allegations against the two lawyers are based.
The matter was subsequently adjourned to August 20, 2026, for further proceedings.
The allegations remain unproven at this stage, and the accused persons are entitled to the presumption of innocence unless and until proven guilty by a competent court.