During the hearing of the ongoing trial of the alleged failed coup, read in court, police statements indicated that the fifth accused, Alimatu Bangura said her co-accused, Amadu Koita Makolo proposed marriage to her but turned him down since she had another fiance. Alimatu’s statements were read before Justice Komba Kamanda and the jury by the police witness attached Criminal Investigation Department.

In his testimony, the witness recognized the accused, Alimatu Hassan Bangura, a police officer attached to the same police station, and recalled 6th December 2023. The witness said he was on duty at the said police station when Inspector Hannah Mansaray assigned Alimatu Bangura to him for investigation.

The witness continued that he obtained statements from the accused for conspiracy to commit mutiny and other related offenses, and the statements were tendered in evidence. However, statements made to the police showed that the accused, Alimatu was enlisted into the Sierra Leone Police in 2011 and that she knew nothing about the allegation levied against her.

Alimatu also said, in her statements, that she came to know Koita in 2019 through a friend who went to visit him when he was in detention at the Criminal Investigation Department headquarters. She also stated that in 2020, Koita called her with a foreign number and asked her if she was married to which she responded that she was not but had kids. On 1st December 2023, she received a call from phone number +44-7565261111 with the person identifying herself as Marion who told her that she wanted her (Alimatu) to be in love with her brother. She also stated that on 4th December, 2023, the same number called her again asking her how was she faring with the work.
Alimatu further told the police that she and Koita were in a love relationship in 2020 but stopped communicating in 2021, and Koita had never sent her money.

Related News

At this point, the police witness was about to tender copies of information that were extracted from the accused’s phone, but the move was objected to by defense counsel, Lamin Kamara who said the phone was the primary source of the information. “The phone should be in court and not the extracted information,” he stressed In response, state counsel, Ahmed James Bockarie assured the court that the phone would be brought to court in the next hearing.

Justice Kamanda, in his ruling, said the extracted information could be tendered only if the source (phone) had been brought to the court. “The documents should not be tendered until the phone which contains the information is in court,” the judge stressed.

During cross-examination by defense Counsel, Lamin Kamara, the witness said he did not investigate the existence of Marion. He said the number communicated between Marion and Alimatu was a foreign one and was from the United Kingdom. The witness, answering questions, further said that he did not send the number to a telecom in England to know under whose name it was registered. The phone, he said, was sent to the police Cyber Crime Unit, and the report showed that the number was registered as Koita’s.

He was shown the report and on page 35, it was confirmed that the accused, Alimatu said her phone did not have a password. The witness said he received Alimatu’s phone from the arresting officer and during investigations, the accused said her phone was hacked, and the matter was similarly referred to the Cyber Crime Unit. Page 11 of exhibit O 1-19 was shown to the witness and said, the accused Alimatu told him about one Mr. Grant who called him but he did not investigate.

The witness further testified that the accused did not cooperate with the police because the door was forcefully opened, but the accused said Koita threatened to kill the kids when he entered her house. Witness however told the court that the claim, upon investigation, was untrue adding that he came to know that Koita entered the house upon her will.

Answering questions from the defense, the witness said the accused, Alimatu told them that the phone number belonged to Marion and not Koita. Witness however said he was not part of the team that investigated the first accused Koita and did not read his voluntary caution statements.

The matter adjourned to 21st February 2024.