By: Alimatu Kargbo
The alleged incitement case involving Zainab Sheriff continued before Principal Magistrate Mustapha Braima Jah at Pademba Road Court No.1, where the prosecution presented digital evidence and later closed its case.
Sheriff made her fourth appearance in court and is facing charges of incitement and threatening language contrary to Section 30(1) of the Public Order Act of 1965.
The prosecution, led by State Counsel Yusuf Isaac Sesay, alleged that on January 31, 2026, at the Brima Attouga Mini Stadium in the Freetown Judicial District, the accused made statements said to be inciting violence against people accused of rigging elections and “cheating eight million people.”
During the trial, the prosecution called its second witness, Ibrahim Sorie Kamara, a Detective Police Constable attached to the Cyber Laboratory of the Scientific Support Unit at CID Headquarters, Pademba Road.
Kamara told the court that he resides at 144 Main Motor Road, Waterloo, and has worked as a cyber analyst for over five years. He said his duties involve examining and analysing data from electronic devices. He added that he is a graduate of Njala University and also holds a certificate in software engineering related to cyber investigations.
He recalled that on February 3, 2026, while on duty at the cyber laboratory, he received a pen drive containing a video from Detective Inspector Abdulai Salim Kamara, Manager of the Cyber Crime Unit at CID Headquarters, for forensic analysis.
The witness said the pen drive was carefully handled and examined before it was inserted into a computer. He explained that a forensic tool was used to create a bit-by-bit copy of the video to preserve the original file.
Kamara told the court that the video was played repeatedly to verify its authenticity and was later transcribed into the Krio language.
He further stated that on February 20, 2026, the cyber unit received another correspondence involving an iPhone 15 Pro Max belonging to the accused, which was also submitted for forensic examination.
According to the witness, the phone was physically examined and later tendered in court as Exhibit E. He said investigators used the *98# code to identify the subscriber number and *#06# to obtain the phone’s IMEI number.
Kamara explained that the phone was connected to a Dell laptop computer, and data was extracted using forensic tools to create a digital copy for analysis.
He said the same video found on the pen drive was also discovered on the iPhone 15 Pro Max belonging to the accused. Screenshots of the video were taken and later printed as photographs.
The witness added that his analysis, observations, findings and conclusions were compiled into a report, which included the printed screenshots. The report was signed by him as the analyst, while Detective Sergeant Sahr Foday Lebbie signed as witness. The report was later tendered in court to form part of the court record.
However, Associate Defence Counsel, Joseph Fitzgerald Kamara, objected to the tendering of the document, arguing that references to the All People’s Congress (APC) contained in the material were irrelevant and prejudicial to the accused.
Kamara submitted that the charges before the court had nothing to do with the APC and that introducing such references could create the wrong impression that the accused was acting on behalf of the party.
In response, State Counsel Sesay argued that the defence counsel could not claim the APC had nothing to do with the matter while at the same time raising the issue in court.
Sesay further submitted that the objection had no legal basis and urged the court to rely on Section 92(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act No.4 of 2024 to admit the document.
He also argued that the witness had the right to tender the photographs and report since he was both the author and analyst responsible for producing them, adding that the report and the photographs formed part of the same forensic package.
In a brief ruling, Magistrate Jah stated that he had considered the submissions from both sides and ruled that the matter before the court was not about the APC but about the charges against the accused.
The magistrate therefore dismissed the defence objection and allowed the document to be tendered in evidence.
During the proceedings, the video extracted from the pen drive was played in open court for analysis.
Under cross-examination by Lead Defence Counsel R.S.B. Wright, the witness confirmed that the content from the pen drive had been transferred using the office Dell computer.
He was asked whether he had ever seen AI-generated videos, to which he responded yes. When asked whether such technology could generate videos artificially, the witness agreed.
Defence counsel further asked whether he could produce a digital receipt of the video, but the witness said he could not.
It was also put to him that the video might not be authentic, which he denied.
When asked which phone recorded the video, the witness responded that it was an SLBC camera . He was also asked whether he felt incited by the video, to which he replied that he was not personally incited.
At the end of the testimony, State Counsel Sesay informed the court that the prosecution was closing its case, having called two witnesses and tendered exhibits in support of the charges.
The matter now proceeds to the defence stage.