By: Alimatu Kargbo
Thirty-four-year-old Maurice Jenner Mohamed Seisay and thirty-five-year-old John Mans, both barristers, are standing trial before Magistrate Mustapha Brima Jah of Pademba Road Court No. 1 on two counts of conspiracy to defraud and obtaining property by false pretences, contrary to Section 32(1) of the Larceny Act 1916.
According to the particulars of offence, between November 1 and 30, 2023, at Harding Sesay and Partners Law Firm, No. 49 Dundas Street, Western Area, Freetown, the accused allegedly conspired with other persons unknown, with intent to defraud.
The second count alleges that the accused obtained three Toyota 4Runner vehicles from Bockarie Conteh, valued at US$114,000, under the pretext that payment for the vehicles would be made within 30 working days, knowing the representation to be false.
When the charges were read and explained to the accused, no plea was taken as the matter is at the committal proceedings stage.
During proceedings, State Prosecutor Yusuf Isaac Sesay, Esq., raised concerns over the defence’s notice of intention to cross-examine prosecution witnesses. He argued that the defence had failed to properly comply with the court’s previous order and the relevant provisions of the law.
Defence Counsel Jessie M. Jengo, Esq., however, told the court that the defence had complied with the requirement, stating that a notice of intention to cross-examine witnesses was filed on August 5, 2026, followed by another notice on August 10, 2026.
Counsel argued that the Criminal Procedure Act No. 8 of 2024 does not prescribe a specific format for such notice, and maintained that the defence had made efforts to comply with the court’s directive.
In his ruling, Magistrate Jah said he had carefully considered the submissions of both the prosecution and the defence.
The Magistrate observed that the defence application was properly filed in the court file, although he could not ascertain whether it had been served on the prosecution.
He noted that the matter before the court was a preliminary investigation, or judicial investigation, which is concerned with the sufficiency of evidence rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Considering that preliminary matters are time-bound, the Magistrate exercised his discretion to dispense with the defence’s non-compliance.
He subsequently ordered the prosecution to make available, produce and tender the written statements and other relevant materials for the subsequent committal proceedings.
The matter was adjourned to August 20, 2026.
