Law of Evidence Part B, Bar Final 2025/2026

Question 120 marks

Your firm has been contacted by Mr Ping, a high ranking opposition figure who was recently indicted by the state on charges of Subversion and Incitement under the Public Order Act 1965.

According to the brief, Mr Ping, was arrested at his residence in Moyamba at 2.00 am by a joint team of armed personnel. He was immediately transported to a holding facility in an undisclosed location, where he was kept in a dark room with no windows for 16 consecutive hours. During this period, his requests to contact his Solicitor were denied, and was provided with no food/drink.

At about 5:00 pm, Regional Commander Kamara entered the room alone, placed a pre drafted document on the table, and stated: “Look Mr Ping, the boys at the Criminal Investigation Department are ready to go hard on this. If you sign this acknowledgment that you coordinated the logistics for the recent civil unrest, I will personally guarantee that the Law Officers’ Department scales this down to a simple misdemeanour with a fine. If you don’t, your family loses everything, and you will grow grey hair at Pademba Road whilst awaiting trial.”

Mr Ping visibly shaking and complaining of headache and chest pain signed the document. Two weeks later, during a bail application before the Magistrate in Moyamba, Mr Ping spotted a reporter from Sierra Leone Broadcasting Corporation (SLBC) in a gallery. As he was being escorted out in handcuffs, he screamed across the courtroom “the documents they have is true, but I only agreed to organise the transport because they threatened to shatter the future of my family and their livelihood.”

During trial before the High Court, the State has given notice of its intention to tender both the signed document and the verbatim statement shouted by the accused to the reporter. Counsel for the defence has filed a motion to exclude both pieces of evidence.

Examine the validity of the Prosecution’s intention and the defence’s objections. Adjudicate upon the admissibility of both pieces of evidence with specific reliance on statutory framework of Sierra Leone and applicable case laws.

Question 2

Dauda is on trial before the High Court holden in Freetown for a single count of Obtaining Money by false pretences contrary to Section 32(1) of the Larceny Act 1916. The state alleges that he defrauded an investor of $150,000 by pretending to sell an authentic 50 carat rough diamonds in Kono, which turned out to be a highly polished piece of industrial glass. Dauda uses a fake certificate bearing a misspelled stamp “The Ministry of Minnes”. Dauda maintains a defence of total denial, asserting that he has never set foot in Kono District but that he is a rice farmer from Bonthe.

To secure a conviction, the state prosecutor seeks to introduce the following items at trial:

• a.The testimony of a Local Town Chief from Bonthe who wishes to state that Dauda is widely known in the community as a chronic liar, a smooth talking thief, and a man of highly questionable morals.
• b.Official Judicial records showing that four years ago, Dauda was convicted in a Magistrate Court for domestic assault against his tenant.
• c.Detailed police report from an unprosecuted 2023 case file in Kenema, where an identical scam occurred. In that instance, an investor was sold an industrial glass diamond wrapped in a specific, locally woven country cloth, inside a VIP room of a particular hotel, using fake certificate bearing the exact same misspelled stamp “The Ministry of Minnes”.

The defense objects to all three items, arguing that they are highly prejudicial and completely irrelevant to the single count on the indictment.

However, during the cross examination of a state witness, the defence counsel remarks:

“my client is an upright, devout pillar of his community who gives rice to orphans. He is morally incapable of this kind of deception.”

Evaluate the competing arguments of the State and the Defence. Determine the legal admissibility of each of the three controversial items of evidence.

Question 3

A high profile civil suit involving a disputed offshore oil concession is currently underway at the Commercial and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Sierra Leone between Qi-Kung Mining Company Ltd as Plaintiff and Kad Ji Company Ltd as Defendant. The Plaintiff Company wishes to build its case using three distinct sources of information:

• a.The Plaintiff subpoenas Mr Macauley, a former in-house legal consultant for the Defendant Company. The Plaintiff intends to compel him to give oral evidence regarding confidential legal opinion he drafted for the board in 2024 detailing how the company could deliberately bypass the environmental standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Additionally, the plaintiff seeks production of early, unredacted drafts of his individual witness statement. The Defendants Counsel objects to both requests.
• b.The Plaintiff calls the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Mines and Mineral Resources to produce a sensitive Cabinet Memorandum containing minutes of inter-ministerial discussions regarding national security threats and economic valuations of the oil blocks. The Attorney General enters the Court and files a formal objection supported by an affidavit, asserting that the document cannot be disclosed because it would jeopardize state security.
• c.The Plaintiff calls Madam Isata, the legally wedded wife of the Defendant Company’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO). She is being asked to give oral evidence regarding a conversation in their marital bedroom where her husband stated “we managed to alter the underlying data log before filing them with the court.” The CEO objects to this being introduced.

During examination in chief, of another witness, Plaintiff’s Counsel attempts to prompt the witness on complex financial figures by reading directly from an untendered document. Defendant’s Counsel stands up, objects and demand to immediately inspect the entire document. Later a crucial defence witness shifts their narrative, completely contradicting their previous deposition. The Defendant’s Counsel immediately seeks the Court’s permission to interrogate this witness.

Analyse the statutory hurdles and legal principles presented by each of these three witnesses. Analyse the propriety of the tactics employed by both legal teams, detailing the procedural mechanics the trial judge must enforce at every stage of the evidential lifecycle.