as ruling due June 18… Zainab Sheriff’s Appeal Faces Procedural Hurdle
By: Patrick Sallia
High Cout Judge, Justice Mark Ngegba presiding in Freetown will on Thursday, June 18, 2026, rule on both the procedural validity and substantive grounds of an appeal filed by entertainer and activist Zainab Sheriff.
The appeal challenges a four-year custodial sentence imposed on April 14, 2026, by Magistrate Mustapha Braima Jah after Sheriff’s conviction on charges including incitement and threatening language.
On Wednesday, June 10, 2026, Roland Wright appeared before Justice Ngegba with 19 grounds of appeal. Before arguments could begin, State Counsel Ibrahim Tholley raised a preliminary objection arguing that the Notice of Appeal dated June 9, 2026, is “defective and incompetent” and failed to comply with Rule 3 (1) of the Appeals from Magistrate Court Rules, 1969. The rule requires every appeal to be commenced by a written notice signed by the appellant. Citing Dr. Sarah Bendu v. State, Tholley contended that what was filed was merely a “statement” and not a valid notice.
He further submitted that Rule 8(2) empowers the court to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution where an appellant fails to comply with mandatory conditions. Compliance, he said, is “not optional.”
Lawyer Wright countered that the State’s application relied on “non-existing legislation” and insisted the defect was not fatal to the appeal.
Should the court overrule the technical objection, Wright outlined key grounds challenging the trial:
That the Magistrate erred by trying Sheriff’s summarily on incitement without her express consent, as required by Section 6 of the Courts Amendment Act, 1981, rendering the trial a nullity.
That no witness testified, no recipient of the message was identified, and a private WhatsApp forward to two contacts was wrongly equated to public dissemination.
That the charge failed to specify which election was referenced, making it “bad for uncertainty.”
That the prosecution admitted it only established a prima facie case, not proof “beyond reasonable doubt.”
That the Magistrate refused to hear a “no case submission,” denying Sheriff her constitutional right to a fair trial, and that the four-year term for a first-time offender was “manifestly excessive” given no violence, injury, or breach of peace occurred. Wright noted Sheriff had already served half the sentence in custody.
Wright Esq prayed the court to allow the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, acquit and discharge Zainab Yeibu Sheriff, or grant bail pending determination of the appeal.
Justice Ngegba is expected to first determine whether the Notice of Appeal meets Rule 3 (1). If he finds it valid, the court will then proceed to consider the 19 substantive grounds. If not, the appeal may be struck out without addressing the merits.
The case raises broader questions on the balance between strict procedural compliance and substantive justice in Sierra Leone’s appellate system, particularly in matters involving freedom of expression and social media.
