By sulaiman.sesay@awokonewspapersl.com
Freetown, SIERRA LEONE -A wave of uncertainty swept through Court No. 1 at Pademba Road as the murder trial of journalist Samuel Brima Mattia entered a pivotal phase. Presiding Magistrate Sahr Kekura heard fresh revelations during a gripping cross-examination, shedding light on procedural lapses that may shape the outcome of the case.
Journalist Joseph Mendel Lamin—better known by his moniker “Manager Dust”—stands accused alongside motorbike rider Morlia Kamara and driver Umaru Timbo. The trio is facing serious charges of conspiracy to commit murder and murder under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, as amended by the Abolition of the Death Penalty Act 2021.
The prosecution alleges that on January 15, 2025, at the Voice of Peace and Development (VOPAD) Radio Station in Kissi Town, Waterloo, the three conspired in the brutal killing of Mattia, sending shockwaves through Sierra Leone’s journalism community.
In a tense courtroom session, defense counsel M. Baratay subjected a key prosecution witness to rigorous cross-examination. The focus was on how statements from the accused were collected—and the answers raised eyebrows.
The witness confirmed he was present with two other officers, Inspectors Matthew and Foday, during the statement-taking process. However, it emerged that only the first accused was present during his initial statement, with the other two arriving later.
More troubling was the revelation that no legal representation was available during the early phase of questioning. Although a lawyer arrived partway through, the witness admitted that the legal representative did not actively participate in the initial interrogation.
When questioned about a critical piece of evidence—Exhibit B1–25—the witness disclosed that he had obtained the document from a colleague and was not its original author. This admission cast further doubt on the authenticity and reliability of the evidence presented.
Tensions in the courtroom rose when the witness claimed to have taken a formal charge statement from the first accused, only for State Counsel to interject that no such statement existed in the official case file.
Initially requesting a delay, defense counsel Baratay chose instead to proceed—prompting Magistrate Kekura to raise serious concerns over the irregularities emerging from the testimony. Citing the need for procedural integrity, he adjourned the case to May 27, 2025, for continuation.
As the trial unfolds, it continues to draw intense public and media interest, especially amid growing calls for justice within the journalistic community. SKS/21/5/2025
