In a highly publicised legal proceeding, Hawa Madiana Hunt, a reality television personality, appeared before the Pademba Road Magistrate Court No. 2 on Monday, January 20, 2025. Her defence counsel submitted a motion for a no-case submission regarding allegations of insulting the President and First Lady.
Magistrate Santigie Bangura has reserved his ruling on whether the matter should be committed to the High Court. The no-case submission was made following the prosecution's presentation of two key witnesses and the subsequent closure of their case.
Ms. Hunt faces two counts of transmitting insulting messages via a computer system, purportedly originating from Facebook posts made between April 1 and 30, 2024. These posts allegedly targeted the First Lady and President Bio, claiming they incited public disorder and damaged their reputations.
Lead defence counsel, Lawyer Rashid Dumbuya, cited procedural irregularities and asserted that the prosecution was engaging in persecution rather than a legitimate prosecution. He argued that the proceedings represent a disregard for due process and characterized the prosecution's case as frivolous, malicious, and vexatious, citing a lack of sufficient evidence to warrant committal to the High Court.
Lawyer Dumbuya also raised jurisdictional issues, contending that his client was brought before the incorrect court, arguing that the High Court has original jurisdiction over this matter and requesting the court strike out the matter and discharge the accused. He also identified an error on the face of the indictment, arguing that the charges should not refer to "sending insulting messages," as this does not constitute an offence under the Cyber Security and Crime Act. Further, he submitted that the prosecution had not established the elements of the alleged offence.
In response, State Counsel Yusif Isaac Sesay argued that his colleague had misinterpreted Section 17 of the Cyber Security and Crime Act, explaining that preliminary investigation is a recognized procedure for approaching the High Court. He clarified that in this instance, a direct approach to the High Court is not permissible without utilising such procedures. Mr. Sesay also maintained that the accused was not improperly charged, stating that marginal notes on an Act of Parliament do not define offences, rather the wording within the Act itself does. He read a statement in which the accused allegedly confessed to police that she created and disseminated the video on social media.
Following arguments from both sides, Magistrate Bangura reserved his ruling, remanded Ms. Hunt, and adjourned the proceedings until Wednesday, January 22, 2025.
The case has garnered considerable public attention, and the magistrate's forthcoming ruling is of significant interest. The decision regarding whether the matter will proceed to the High Court or whether the accused will be discharged now rests with Magistrate Bangura.
Comments