By Alima Kargbo
Magistrate John Manso Fornah of Pademba Road Magistrate Court No. 2 has admitted a video recording into evidence in the ongoing trial of businessman Mohamed Nicol, who is accused of obtaining Le311,000 by false pretences in an alleged Canadian visa scam.
Nicol, 41 years old, is facing one count of obtaining money by false pretences, contrary to Section 32(1) of the Larceny Act of 1916.
According to the charge sheet, the accused allegedly obtained a total of Le311,000 from the complainant, Victor Comer, on various dates between 1 January and 31 October 2025 at No. 11 Alusine Street, Juba Hill, Freetown. The prosecution alleges that Nicol falsely claimed he would secure a Canadian visa and facilitate the complainant’s travel to Canada, knowing the representation to be false.
During Tuesday’s proceedings, the prosecution sought to tender a video recording through its second witness, Mariatu Bangura (PW2). Bangura had earlier testified that she used her Redmi Android mobile phone to record the accused counting money that she and the complainant had allegedly paid to him.
Defence counsel objected to the admissibility of the video, arguing that the prosecution had failed to establish the exact date the recording was made. The defence also maintained that the video should first be authenticated by a qualified Judiciary expert before it could be admitted into evidence.
Counsel further submitted that the faces of the witness and another individual in the recording were not clearly visible and argued that the accused could not be positively identified from the footage.
In response, prosecuting counsel D.S.P. Conteh argued that PW2 was both the maker and author of the video and was therefore competent to produce it in court. He submitted that the witness personally recorded the video while the money was being handed over to the accused and that the footage clearly depicts Nicol receiving and counting the cash, making it a material piece of evidence.
The prosecution urged the court to dismiss the defence’s objection and admit the video through its maker.
Delivering his ruling, Magistrate Fornah held that the witness, being the maker and author of the recording, was a competent person to tender the video in evidence. He overruled the defence’s objection and admitted the recording as part of the prosecution’s case.
The matter was adjourned to 28 July 2026 for the continuation of the testimony of the second prosecution witness.