The appeal of the convicted Chairperson of the We Yone Duti Organisation, Yeabu Zainab Sheriff, commenced before Justice Mark Ngeba. During the proceedings, counsel for the appellant, R.S.V. Wright, advanced five grounds of appeal challenging both the conviction and sentence.
Counsel submitted that the appellant was privately interviewed by the blogger Born 2 Blog during a political rally held on 31 January 2026 at Brima Attouga Mini Stadium. He argued that the blogger—not the appellant—published the interview, and that two officers from the CID Cyber Unit initiated the prosecution after viewing the publication online, despite no member of the public coming forward with a complaint.
On Ground 1, counsel argued that incitement is a common law offence triable either summarily or on indictment. He maintained that the Magistrate was required to obtain the appellant’s express consent before proceeding summarily. Since no such consent was obtained he argued that the entire trial was a nullity and the conviction should be quashed.
On Grounds 2 and 4, counsel submitted that the Magistrate acknowledged the charges were defective but nevertheless convicted the appellant by relying on a dissenting judgment, which is not binding law. He argued that although a defective charge may be cured, no attempt was made to do so before judgment. Counsel further noted that the Magistrate accepted that Count 1, charging incitement simpliciter, was defective, yet still proceeded to convict.
On Ground 3, counsel contended that there was no complainant in the matter. He argued that the prosecution was based solely on the opinion of two police officers who viewed the blogger’s publication, and that no person testified to having been threatened or incited. He also maintained that the publication was made by the blogger and not by the appellant.
On Ground 5, counsel argued that the prosecution failed to call any witness to testify that they had been incited or threatened by the appellant’s alleged statements. He submitted that, in the absence of such evidence, the offences were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Counsel therefore urged the High Court to allow the appeal, quash the convictions, and set aside the sentences imposed by the Magistrate’s Court.
The matter was adjourned to 16 July 2026 for the continuation of the appeal.
