It was the evidence of PW1 that on the 15th September, 2025, he received information concerning a gathering at the National Audit Office. He proceeded to the scene with approximately fifty police officers. He found journalists conducting a press conference and instructed them to disperse, which they did. He further testified that another group later arrived, including the accused persons, with the intention of holding a press conference. Upon being asked whether they possessed any permit authorizing the gathering, they replied they did not. He adduced that they were instructed to disperse and they complied. He testified that Alieu Bah came back, insisting that they had a right to gather and express their dissatisfaction. PW2 and PW3 gave similar evidence and PW4 said he was not present at the scene.
Having heard the no-case-submission made by L.S. Camara and the reply of the prosecution, the presiding magistrate stated in her ruling that PW1 said that people were shouting and that the environment became chaotic but he gave no particulars of the alleged chaos. “He did not testify anyone threatened violence, assaulted another person, damaged property, intimidated members of the public or attempted to forcibly to enter the National Audit Office,” she stated.
She went on to say that the prosecution’s reliance upon Section 5 of the Public Order Act was misplaced. “The accused persons have not been charged with contravening any provision of the Public Order Act. No count before this court alleges that they organised or participated in a procession, meeting or assemble without obtaining the permit prescribed under that Act,” she said. “It is a fundamental principle of criminal justice that an accused person must answer only the offence charged in the charge sheet.”
She further asserted that a peaceful gathering does not become an unlawful assembly merely because it is unlicensed or because those assembled refused to comply with a police instruction to disperse. “The prosecution must prove conduct creating an objectively reasonable apprehension of violence or disorder. It is this ingredient that distinguishes an unlawful assembly from a lawful public gathering,” she ruled.
The presiding magistrate adduced that there was no evidence directed to one of the essential ingredients of the offence that the conduct of the accused persons endangered the public or obstructed the public in the enjoyment of rights common to all citizens. “The prosecution has undoubtedly established that the accused persons assembled outside the National Audit Office. It has also established that police officers attended the scene and subsequently dispersed the gathering,” she declared. “Those facts do not constitute the offence charged.”
