Magistrate H. Kamara Allows Prosecution To Add Two More Charges
By Mohamed Muckson Sesay (The One)
The Magistrate Court Holden at Masiaka Town has granted the prosecution leave to amend an existing criminal information by adding two additional charges against five defendants standing trial in C/S 119/2026.
The ruling was delivered on Thursday, 17 September 2026, by His Worship Magistrate Harold Kamara, following an application by the prosecution dated 30 June 2026.
The prosecution had asked the court for permission to add two further counts: conspiracy to commit a crime contrary to law and wounding with intent contrary to Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
The defendants are Pa Alimamy Turay, Ibrahim Turay, Momoh Alpha Alie Turay, Alimamy Turay and Isatu Turay.
The prosecution was represented by W. Gaber Esq. and F.D. Amara Esq., while the defence team comprised C.A. Kamara Esq., P. Okoli Esq., C.M.B. Amara Esq. and S. Koroma Esq.
Before the latest ruling, the defendants were facing five counts arising from an alleged incident involving several individuals.
According to the ruling, the existing charges include allegations of wounding contrary to Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to Section 47 of the same Act.
The defendants had separately pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The prosecution had already commenced its case and called PW1, Joe Kai, who gave evidence-in-chief and was subsequently cross-examined by defence counsel C.M.B. Amara Esq.
In considering the application, Magistrate Kamara noted that evidence already placed before the court included allegations that PW1 was attacked and sustained injuries to his head and abdomen. Photographs depicting the alleged injuries were tendered and admitted as Exhibits JK3, 1–8. A police medical endorsed form was admitted as Exhibit JK4, while a referral letter to Mile 38 Health Centre indicating scalp lacerations, a head wound and a stitch on the right abdominal flank was admitted as Exhibit JK5.
The court also noted that medical reports relating to Abu Bakarr Kamara and Mohamed Alie Sesay had been admitted as Exhibits JK6 and JK7.
However, the defence opposed the prosecution’s application, arguing, among other things, that PW1 had already testified and been cross-examined and that the defence had prepared its case based on the original charges. The defence also argued that Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2024 should not be used to introduce substantive new offences after the trial had commenced. The defence further raised concerns that the prosecution had had sufficient opportunity to frame the appropriate charges before the trial, and suggested that the application could amount to an attempt to address weaknesses in the prosecution’s case after cross-examination.
Magistrate Harold Kamara rejected the argument that Section 107 is limited to correcting clerical or technical defects. The court held that Section 107(1)(b), read together with Section 107(2), allows a court to amend an information where evidence discloses an offence different from the one originally charged and permits the addition of a new charge.
However, the court stressed that the power is subject to an important limitation: the amendment must not cause injustice to the defendants.
The court referred to Johal and Ram (1973) QB 475, noting the principle that amendments during a trial can potentially prejudice an accused person and that courts must carefully consider whether an amendment would result in injustice.
The court also considered the constitutional right to a fair hearing under Section 23 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone 1991.
Magistrate Kamara acknowledged that the defendants had already cross-examined PW1, but held that this fact did not automatically prevent the court from permitting an amendment.
The court pointed to Section 107(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2024, which provides safeguards where an information is amended. These include recalling witnesses for further cross-examination or re-examination. The court also noted that Section 107(5) empowers the court to allow witnesses to be recalled and to adjourn proceedings where a defendant has been deceived or embarrassed by an amendment.
According to the ruling, only PW1 had testified for the prosecution, the prosecution had not yet completed its case, and the defence had not yet opened its case. The court therefore found that the trial had not progressed to a stage where the proposed amendment would necessarily cause irreparable procedural prejudice.
On the proposed charge of wounding with intent under Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the court found that the allegation was connected to matters already before it. Magistrate Kamara observed that the existing charges arose from the same alleged incident, location and date and involved the same alleged victims.
The evidence concerning the alleged use of a cutlass and sticks, the photographs of injuries, the medical form and the referral to a health facility was considered capable, at this stage of the proceedings, of providing an evidential basis for the proposed charge.
However, the court emphasized that it was not determining whether the defendants were guilty or whether the prosecution would ultimately prove the new charges beyond reasonable doubt.
The defence had also argued that PW1 did not specifically identify during examination-in-chief which defendant inflicted the particular injuries alleged. The court held that this was an evidential matter to be determined during the trial and was not sufficient grounds to refuse the amendment application. Magistrate Kamara said the court should not conduct a “mini-trial” at the interlocutory stage to determine the credibility, sufficiency or weight of PW1’s evidence.
The court noted that, if the information was amended, the defence would have an opportunity to recall PW1 and further test issues including identification, the individual acts allegedly committed by each defendant, the circumstances of the alleged attack and the question of intent.
Having considered the application, affidavits, evidence already presented, submissions of counsel and relevant authorities, Magistrate Harold Kamara ruled that Section 107(1)(b) and Section 107(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2024 confer jurisdiction on the court to add a new charge where evidence discloses an offence other than the offence originally charged. The court further held that the fact that PW1 had already been cross-examined did not, by itself, deprive the court of that jurisdiction. The court was satisfied that any potential prejudice could be addressed through procedural safeguards.
The court accordingly granted the prosecution’s Notice of Motion dated 30 June 2026. The prosecution has been granted leave to amend the information by adding:
– Count Six: Conspiracy to commit a crime contrary to law.
– Count Seven: Wounding with intent contrary to Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
The prosecution has been ordered to file and serve the amended information.
The court further ordered that PW1, Joe Kai, be recalled for further cross-examination in accordance with Section 107(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2024. The defence is also to be afforded reasonable time and facilities to prepare its response to the newly added charges.
Magistrate Harold Kamara concluded the ruling by stating that “this court so ruled.”
The ruling was dated 17 September 2026.
