COURTSEY: THE CALABASH NEWSPAPER!
Abdul Kpaka Murder Trial in Turmoil as Judge Dismisses Jury Despite Supreme Court Ruling
By Foday Moriba Conteh
The ongoing murder trial of businessman Abdul Kpaka, accused of killing his girlfriend, Sia Fatu Kamara, in August 2024, has taken a dramatic legal twist, raising serious questions about judicial consistency, due process and respect for Supreme Court authority in Sierra Leone.
The case, now before Appeal Court Judge Justice Alfred Ganda, is increasingly being viewed as a major test for the country’s justice system. The death of 28-year-old Sia Fatu Kamara sparked widespread public outrage, with many demanding accountability and a fair trial.
After Abdul Kpaka was charged and brought before Magistrate Santigie Bangura on 28 August 2024, the state made an unusual move by invoking Section 136 of the (now repealed) Criminal Procedure Act of 1965, bypassing the traditional preliminary investigation and sending the matter directly to the High Court.
Although legal, the decision was made without explanation, drawing immediate protest from the defense. Despite their objections, the defense complied and proceeded to the High Court.
The trial began on 17th September 2024 before Justice Momoh Jah Stevens. Disagreements emerged quickly. The prosecution applied for a judge-alone trial, referencing Section 144(2) of the 1965 Act.
The defense countered, insisting:
• The prosecution failed to justify why removing a jury was “in the interest of justice.”
• A recent landmark Supreme Court ruling Ekunolaje Nicole vs The State, affirmed the importance of jury trials for serious offences.
The accused has the right to choose the mode of trial as provided under Section 44(1) of the 1965 Criminal Procedure Act. Furthermore, Section 23(1) of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone guarantees the right to a fair hearing for all.”
However, Justice Momoh Jah Stevens ruled in favour of the prosecution, stating that a judge-alone trial would ensure “expeditious proceedings.” He added that the Ekunolaje ruling was merely a guide, not binding.
Concerned about bias, human rights violations and the removal of the jury, the defense escalated the matter to the Supreme Court.
In a powerful unanimous judgment, the five Supreme Court justices ruled that:
1. Allegations of bias and human rights violations against Justice Stevens were valid, and the case must be reassigned to a different judge.
2. The case must proceed before a judge and jury, in line with the law and the Ekunolaje decision.
3. All prior rulings regarding protective custody and refusal of bail were squashed. Although bail was not granted, the Court advised the defense to reapply before the new trial judge.
The case was reassigned to Justice Alfred Ganda in January 2025.
With Justice Ganda presiding, jurors were empanelled and both sides prepared to restart.
But the prosecution repeatedly failed to bring witnesses to court. Across nine court appearances between January and May, not a single witness was presented. The defense and jurors attended consistently, but proceedings stalled.
In the May-September criminal session, a new jury was empanelled at the prosecution’s request. Two witnesses eventually testified, but little progress was made.
When the third session resumed in October 2025, the legal landscape had shifted: the 2024 Criminal Procedure Act, which abolishes jury trials, had come into force.
The prosecution quickly applied to dismiss the jury and proceed by judge alone.
The defense objected strongly, arguing:
• This case is governed by a binding Supreme Court order requiring a jury trial.
• Such an order remains valid unless overturned by the Supreme Court itself.
• The state had nine months to prosecute the case under the old law but instead delayed.
Lead Defense Counsel, E. T. Koroma, urged Justice Ganda to state a case to the Supreme Court for determination, as permitted in situations of legal conflict.
Despite reserving his ruling, Justice Ganda ultimately sided with the prosecution and dismissed the jurors in direct contrast to the Supreme Court’s previous orders.
He instructed the state to proceed with its next witness and warned against further delays. His decision has triggered intense debate about whether he has acted in contempt of the Supreme Court, and whether this sets a troubling precedent for judicial hierarchy.
Legal observers and members of the public are now asking:
• Is Justice Ganda’s decision a violation of the Supreme Court’s binding ruling?
• Can a trial judge override the explicit instructions of the highest court?
• Will this trigger another round of litigation between the state and the defense?
As these questions linger, Abdul Kpaka remains in custody at the Pademba Road Maximum Correctional Centre. The matter was adjourned to today Wednesday, 19 November 2025, when the next chapter of this highly scrutinized trial will unfold.
Follow the The Calabash Newspaper channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va9YU7OCnA7lO5dUED0V
(C)The Calabash Newspaper
