Submission of No Case to Answer: Dealing in Prohibited Drugs

A complete drafted submission of no case to answer on behalf of four accused persons charged with dealing in prohibited drugs and accessory before the fact.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

My Lord the Accused Persons are charged with dealing in prohibited drugs contrary to section 7 subsection c of the National Drugs Control Act of 2008 and Accessory before the fact contrary to Law.

This submission of NO CASE TO ANSWER is made on behalf of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Accused Persons, relying on the inherent jurisdiction of this Honorable Court and the statutory safeguards provided under the Criminal Procedure Act 2024.

This submission is founded on the fundamental proposition that the Prosecution, having called all its witnesses and tendered its exhibits, has failed to discharge the evidential burden placed upon it by law. It is our respectful submission that the evidence adduced is not merely insufficient; it is forensically barren, legally untenable, and factually contradictory.

My Lord, the Accused persons stand before this Court, stripped of their liberty and professional reputation, on charges that are effectively a legal fiction. The Prosecution seeks to criminalize the performance of lawful duty. They ask this Court to infer a criminal act from a search that was conducted in the open, supervised by the state’s own elite security apparatus (ONS, Sierra Leone Police and Customs officers), and which yielded a negative result.

I submit that to call upon the Accused persons to open a defense in the face of such manifestly unreliable evidence would not only be an exercise in futility but a derogation of the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Section 23(4) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone 1991. Where the Prosecution’s case has been eviscerated by its own internal contradictions and the existence of a novus actus interveniens (the act of Juanis), the only just verdict is one of immediate discharge and acquittal.

FACTS

The Accused persons are arraigned on a two-count indictment:

• Count 1: Engaging in Dealing in Drugs (Importation), contrary toSection 7(c) of the National Drugs Control Act 2008.
• Count 2: Accessory Before the Fact, contrary to the general provisions of criminal law.

The Prosecution’s Theory vs. The Evidentiary Reality: The gravamen of the Prosecution’s case is that the Accused persons, being employees at the Lungi International Airport, facilitated the importation of cocaine by conducting a "sham" search of a bag belonging to one Habib. However, the summary of facts elicited during cross-examination establishes a radically different narrative:

• The Incident (8th September 2025): On the date in question, the Accused persons were on active duty. They intercepted and searched a bag belonging to a passenger. It is an agreed fact that this search wasnegative. No drugs were found by the Accused.
• The "Supervised" Search: Crucially, this search was not conducted in a clandestine vacuum. It was witnessed by officers of the Office of National Security (ONS) and the Customs Department. These state agents did not intervene, did not raise an alarm, and did not find drugs—thereby corroborating the Accused persons' findings that the bag was clear at that specific material time.
• The Intervening Act (Juanis): The evidence on record indicates that subsequent to the Accused persons' search, a third party, identified as "Juanis," boarded the aircraft and allegedly retrieved or manipulated the contraband. The Prosecution now seeks to retroactively attribute the criminal conduct of Juanis (and the ownership of Habib) to the Accused persons without a scintilla of evidence showing a "meeting of minds."
• The Judicial Precedent (State v. Habib): Prior to these proceedings, the High Court issued an Order in the matter ofThe State v. Habib. That judicial determination identified Habib as the owner of the bag and the principal offender. The Prosecution has failed to establish any nexus—be it forensic, digital, or financial—linking these four airport workers to the criminal enterprise of Habib.

The Procedural Anomalies

• The "Phantom" Investigation: The alleged incident occurred on8th September 2025. Yet, the Accused were not invited for questioning until4th November 2025. This unexplained hiatus of nearly two months, devoid of any crime scene reconstruction at Lungi Airport, suggests an investigation based on afterthought and conjecture rather than contemporaneous evidence.
• The Discrepancy in Caution: The Accused were cautioned for offenses materially different from those charged. They were interrogated on general negligence but charged with specific drug importation. This "bait and switch" tactic has prejudiced their ability to provide a comprehensive defense at the investigative stage.

1.

2.

1.2 THE SCOPE OF THE SUBMISSION (CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2024)

The Statutory Framework: This submission is anchored in theCriminal Procedure Act 2024, which empowers this Court to act as the ultimate arbiter of the sufficiency of evidence. While the Act emphasizes the efficient administration of justice, it strictly prohibits the continuation of a trial where the essential ingredients of the offense remain unproven.

The Threshold for "No Case": We rely on the crystallised principles of common law, specifically theGalbraith Test(R v Galbraith), which is applicable in Sierra Leone. The scope of this submission addresses the two limbs ofGalbraith:

• Limb 1 (No Evidence): We submit there isno evidencethat the Accused imported drugs. Theactus reusof Section 7(c) requires a physical act of moving prohibited substances across borders. The evidence shows the Accused searched a bag and found nothing. A negative search is not an act of importation.
• Limb 2 (Tenuous Evidence): Even if the Court finds a scintilla of evidence suggesting negligence, it is of such atenuous character—contradicted by the presence of ONS and Customs officers—that a conviction would be unsafe.

The Burden of Proof (Section 17, National Drugs Control Act 2008): Section 17 places a heavy burden on the Prosecution to prove the nature of the substance and the accused's connection to it.

• The Prosecution has failed to link the specific drugs found (Habib’s drugs) to the specific timeline of the Accused persons.
• The Prosecution failed to confront the Accused with the exhibits during the investigation.
• The Prosecution failed to request forensic testing to link the Accused to the drugs.

Therefore, the scope of this submission is not merely technical; it goes to the very root of the charge. We submit that the Prosecution has failed to establish aprima faciecase requiring an answer, and as such, the Court is duty-bound to discharge the Accused persons forthwith.

1.

2.

3.

4.