Magistrate Jah Commits Admire Bio’s Case To High Court
By: Alimatu Kargbo
Magistrate Mustapha Brima Jah of Pademba Road Court No. 1 in Freetown has rejected a no-case submission by the defence of Admire Bio Jalloh, ruling that the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence for the suspect to face trial before the High Court.
Bio Jalloh is facing several charges, including obtaining money by false pretences, contrary to Section 25 of the relevant law; money laundering, contrary to the Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism Act; receiving and uttering false documents, contrary to Section 7 of the Fraudulent Activities Act; selling minerals without legal valuation, contrary to the Minerals Act, 2023; and providing false information, contrary to the Income Tax Act, 2007.
The case came before the Magistrate as a preliminary investigation to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to warrant the accused standing trial before the High Court.
During the proceedings, the prosecution called three witnesses, who gave evidence and were cross-examined by defence counsel. Several documents and other materials were also tendered in court.
At the close of the prosecution’s case, the defence made a no-case submission, arguing that the evidence presented was not sufficient to require Bio Jalloh to answer the allegations.
The prosecution opposed the submission.
In his ruling, Magistrate Jah said he had carefully considered the evidence presented, the arguments from both sides and the authorities relied upon by counsel.
The Magistrate referred to Section 113B of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2024, which provides that where a Magistrate is satisfied that statements and other evidence presented by the prosecution are sufficient to put a defendant on trial for the offence charged or another indictable offence, the defendant should be committed to the High Court.
He also considered Section 113H, which provides for the discharge of a defendant where the evidence is insufficient to justify prosecution.
The court further considered the applicable practice direction on no-case submissions, including circumstances where there is no evidence capable of proving an essential element of an offence, or where prosecution evidence has been so discredited or rendered unreliable that no reasonable tribunal could safely convict.
Magistrate Jah also considered the principle established in Ganiyu v. The State in determining whether the defence submission should succeed.
The Magistrate stressed that the proceedings before him were not a full trial, but a preliminary investigation. His task was therefore to determine whether the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to justify putting the accused on trial.
After considering the totality of the evidence, Magistrate Jah concluded that there was a case for Bio Jalloh to answer.
He consequently rejected the no-case submission and committed Bio Jalloh to stand trial before the High Court.
The ruling means that the allegations against Bio Jalloh will now proceed to the High Court, where the prosecution’s evidence will be tested fully and the accused will have the opportunity to defend herself in accordance with the law.
