Zainab Sheriff, a well-known entertainer, model and political activist, has been found guilty of two counts under the Public Order Act of 1965 by Magistrate Court No. 1 on Pademba Road.
Delivering judgment after Sheriff’s ninth court appearance, Principal Magistrate Mustapha Brima Jah convicted her on Count One, incitement, and Count Two, threatening language.
She was sentenced to four years imprisonment for incitement and two months for threatening language. The sentences are to run concurrently, meaning she will serve a total of four years in prison.
Sheriff, who leads the “Wi Duti” movement and is a vocal supporter of the All People’s Congress (APC), was arrested in February 2026 following remarks she made during an APC rally at Brima Attouga Mini Stadium on January 31, 2026.
According to prosecutors, Sheriff made statements during the rally calling for the death of anyone who rigs or steals elections, and also used language deemed threatening toward President Julius Maada Bio.
During the trial, the prosecution presented video footage, written transcripts of the speech, and forensic evidence from devices seized in the course of the investigation. The court dismissed a “no-case submission” filed by the defence, ruling that the prosecution had established a prima facie case.
In her defence, Sheriff denied that her remarks were intended to incite violence, maintaining that they were political statements aimed at discouraging electoral malpractice. She made an unsworn statement from the dock and did not testify under cross-examination.
The ruling has since drawn mixed reactions from civil society and political actors. Gender activist Naasu Fofanah has appealed to President Bio to consider clemency, citing concerns about proportionality and the broader implications for free expression.
However, former Minister of Social Welfare, Gender and Children’s Affairs under the administration of former President Ernest Bai Koroma, Sylvia Blyden, appeared to take a different tone. In a social media post following the sentencing, she wrote, “I serve a powerful God. Me God nor dae sleep. My God never slumbers.”
The case has also reignited debate over the application of the Public Order Act. Some civil society commentators and legal observers argue that the law is often used disproportionately against opposition-aligned figures, while others perceived to be closer to the ruling establishment have made similarly strong statements without facing prosecution.
While no official data has been published to conclusively establish selective enforcement, legal analysts note that such perceptions can influence public trust in the justice system, particularly in a politically polarized environment.
Supporters of the ruling, however, maintain that the judiciary acts independently and on the basis of evidence, insisting that any speech that meets the legal threshold for incitement or threats is liable to prosecution regardless of political affiliation.
Sheriff’s conviction comes at a time of heightened political sensitivity and follows other recent cases involving opposition figures, including the detention of APC Secretary General Lansana Dumbuya on similar allegations.
As reactions continue, the case is expected to remain a focal point in national discussions around political speech, legal accountability, and the balance between maintaining public order and protecting democratic freedoms in Sierra Leone.
