Jihad Basma & Three Other Suspects Remanded

Four individuals, namely Sheku Kabba, Tamba Lebbie, Sahr Lebbie, and Jehad Basma, appeared for the second time before Magistrate Santigie Bangura at Pademba Road Court No. 2 in connection with a high-profile case involving a missing diamond. The case, filed under number CS 2113, has garnered significant public attention due to the nature and value of the missing property.

On Wednesday, 14th August 2024, during the initial hearing, State Prosecutor Yusif Isaac Sesay Esq. informed the court that there were two separate case files concerning the same incident. He requested that the charges in case file CS 2113 be dropped, stating that no evidence would be presented against the accused in that matter. Consequently, Magistrate Bangura granted the Prosecutor’s request, and the accused persons were formally discharged from the charges in that specific case.

However, the Prosecution quickly shifted focus to a new case file, CS 2199, which was introduced during the same session. Prosecutor Sesay sought a short adjournment, citing the absence of one of the accused, who is a key figure in the ongoing investigation. The absence of the third accused was noted as a significant development, implying potential complications in the prosecution’s case absence.

Defense Counsel, Jessie M. Jengo Esq., representing the accused persons, immediately applied for bail under subsections 2 and 3 of Section 79 of the Criminal Procedure Act No. 32 of 1965. He emphasized the accused individuals’ ties to the community, arguing that they were long-standing residents within the court’s jurisdiction and had credible sureties ready to ensure their compliance with court orders. Jengo further assured the court that his clients would not interfere with prosecution witnesses or attempt to flee the jurisdiction.

In contrast, Prosecutor Sesay objected to the defense’s bail application, emphasizing the gravity of the charges and the seriousness with which the court should treat such matters. He argued that the previous case, which had been discharged, was no longer relevant and that the current circumstances, including the absence of one accused person, demanded careful consideration. Sesay urged the court to deny bail, reflecting the severity of the alleged offenses and the court’s commitment to justice for the victim.

Magistrate Bangura, after carefully considering the arguments from both the prosecution and the defense, acknowledged the seriousness of the charges, particularly given the nature and estimated value of the missing diamond. He also took note of the unexplained absence of the third accused, which further complicated the case.

Referring to a legal principle from Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 23rd Edition, page 203, Magistrate Bangura highlighted that bail is often denied when the charges are severe. Despite these considerations, he noted that the prosecution did not object to the bail request and subsequently decided to grant bail to the accused persons, albeit under strict conditions.

Magistrate Bangura set the bail at two billion Leones for each accused, with two sureties of like sum. The sureties must be responsible residents of Freetown and property owners, with their property titles matching the stated amount on the charge sheet. These titles must be supported by building permits issued at the time of construction on their lands. Additionally, one of the sureties must have a bank account with a balance of at least one billion Leones, with verification to be provided by the bank.

The court ordered that all the accused must surrender their travel documents, including passports, to prevent any attempt to flee the jurisdiction. Furthermore, a letter from the Master and Registrar will be sent to the Department of Immigration, with copies to the court and the prosecution, to ensure that the accused persons are not allowed to leave the country. Each accused person is also required to sign an affidavit affirming their intention to remain within the jurisdiction for the duration of the trial. The bail conditions will only be considered met, once the Master has approved them.

The case was adjourned to a later date, pending further proceedings.

This case continues to attract significant public interest, not only due to the value of the missing diamond, but also because of the broader implications it holds for Sierra Leone’s legal system and the handling of high-stakes criminal cases. The court’s decision to grant bail under such stringent conditions, underscores the seriousness with which the judiciary views this matter.

Observers are keenly watching how the proceedings will unfold, particularly given the prosecutorial challenges posed by the absence of one of the accused. The outcome of this case could set important precedents for future cases involving significant financial assets and criminal allegations in Sierra Leone.