By Andrew Chokpeleh
Freetown, 4th June, 2026—The ongoing murder trial that involves Abdul Kpaka has witnessed extensive arguments from both the prosecution and defense regarding the admissibility of a mobile phone allegedly linked to the deceased, Sia Fatu Kamara, with the matter centered on issues of ownership, custody, and evidentiary foundation.
The dispute arose during the testimony of a prosecution witness, Abdul Kpaka, who was cross-examined by the defense over a mobile phone that the defense sought to tender as evidence.
The Lead Defense Counsel, Teddy Koroma, applied for the mobile phone believed to belong to the deceased to be admitted as an exhibit. However, the Defense argued that the device was relevant to the case and should be produced before the court.
Counsel further informed the court that the phone had already been handed over to the court’s cyber unit for examination and verification of its contents.
The Defense maintained that the phone had remained in its possession and that an independent third party had held custody of the device for more than three weeks.
Counsel argued that any concerns regarding the contents of the phone could be addressed after the device was formally admitted into evidence.
Lead Defense Counsel, Koroma, contended that the defense intended to rely on the contents of the phone and that the device’s admission was necessary to ensure a fair and complete presentation of its case.
Lead Prosecutor, Yusuf I. Sesay Esq., strongly objected to the Defense application, arguing that the proper legal foundation for the admission of the phone had not been established.
According to the Prosecution, while the witness had stated that the deceased owned the phone, there was no evidence showing that the Accused authored or created any of the contents contained in the device.
Prosecutors further argued that the Defense had failed to demonstrate the chain of custody or provide sufficient grounds explaining why the phone should be admitted as an exhibit.
Sesay maintained that ownership alone was insufficient to justify the admission of the phone into evidence. He emphasized that the defense had not cited any legal authority supporting its request and argued that the contents of the phone remained unverified.
The prosecution also noted that the phone had reportedly been in the possession of an IT specialist, identified as Emmanuel Hindolo, before being brought before the court.
Given the circumstances, Sesay argued that the collection and handling of the device raised concerns that made its proposed admission unlawful. According to the prosecution, the integrity and authenticity of the phone’s contents must first be established before the court could properly consider admitting it into evidence
After hearing submissions from both sides, the presiding judge ruled that the defense application lacked sufficient legal basis.
The court held that the defense had failed to establish the necessary evidentiary foundation required for the admission of the phone as an exhibit.
The judge noted that the defense had not adequately demonstrated the relevance and reliability of its contents. However, Justice Ganda ruled that Emmanuel Hindolo, the Information Technology Specialist, be interposed as he is the second defense witness.
Consequently, the application to tender the mobile phone into evidence was rejected.
The ruling marked a significant development in the proceedings, as the disputed phone had been presented by the defense as potentially crucial evidence in the case. The matter was adjourned to the 10th June, 2026, as the court is expected to project the contents of the deceased’s mobile phone.
