By Yusufu S. Bangura
The second phase of the court martial trial commenced on Thursday, October 17, 2024, with six military personnel pleading not guilty to charges of mutiny, failure to suppress mutiny, and desertion before Judge Advocate Mark Ngegba and a panel of seven board members.
The accused, Major Patrick Abu Ordende Sesay, Major Juana Kabba, Major Foday Sumana Kabba, Major Ibrahim Abu Bakarr Bangura, Lieutenant Zainab Amara Suwu, and Corporal Mohamed Koroma faced an eight-count indictment for offenses under military law.
The charges stemmed from an alleged plot to overthrow the government of Sierra Leone between June 24 and July 29, 2023.
The prosecution, led by Joseph A. K. Sesay, argued that the accused either participated in the mutiny or failed to report it, despite being aware of its existence.
Additionally, the indictment accused some of the personnel of inciting others to join the mutiny. Several defendants also faced charges of desertion for going absent without leave (AWOL) between November 2023 and June 2024.
At the start of the trial, the court administered oaths to Judge Advocate Ngegba and the board members, which included Colonel Samuel Michael Oliver George, who serves as the board president, and other senior military officers.
Following the reading of the charges, all six accused entered not-guilty pleas. The lead prosecutor requested an adjournment under Rule 46 of the Armed Forces Act to prepare for opening arguments. Judge Advocate Ngegba granted the adjournment and set the next hearing for Monday, October 21, 2024.
Defense lawyers, including Ibrahim Bangura from the Legal Aid Board, Hassan Kamara, and A. Turay, objected to the charges, asserting that some of their clients were civilians at the time of the alleged offenses, having been dismissed from the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF).
They argued that their clients should not be tried under military law and instead should face charges in a civilian court. Lawyer Ibrahim Bangura emphasized that his clients, the second and sixth accused, were no longer serving members of the military when the alleged crimes occurred, making the court martial inappropriate.
However, prosecutor J.A.K. Sesay countered the defense’s claims, citing provisions of the Armed Forces Act that allow for former military personnel to be tried under military law even after dismissal.
He referred to Sections 116 and 117 of the Act, which permit the court martial to proceed, regardless of whether the accused had ceased to be active service members at the time of the offense. Sesay further noted that the defense had not provided specific dates or evidence of their clients’ dismissals.
In his ruling, Judge Advocate Ngegba upheld the prosecution’s argument, stating that the accused, despite their claims of dismissal, fell under the category of individuals subject to military law. He overruled the defense’s objections and ordered the trial to proceed.
