Murder Trial of Journalist Samuel Mattia Takes Critical Turn During Cross-Examination
By Mamajah Jalloh | 20 May 2025
The ongoing murder trial of journalist Samuel Brima Mattia took a significant turn on Tuesday, May 20, 2025, during the cross-examination of a prosecution witness at Pademba Road Court No. 1, presided over by Magistrate Sahr Kekura.
The accused in the case include fellow journalist Joseph Mendel Lamin, popularly known as “Manager Dust”, commercial bike rider Morlia Kamara, and driver Umaru Timbo. The trio faces two counts: conspiracy to commit murder and murder, in violation of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, as amended by the Abolition of the Death Penalty Act 2021.
According to the prosecution, the accused allegedly conspired to murder Mattia on January 15, 2025, at the Voice of Peace and Development (VOPAD) Radio Station in Kissi Town, Waterloo.
During Tuesday’s proceedings, lead defense counsel M. Baratay challenged the validity of statements obtained from the accused, citing inconsistencies and procedural lapses. Under cross-examination, the prosecution witness confirmed that he, along with Inspectors Matthew and Foday, was present during the initial statement-taking process.
When asked whether all three accused were present at the same time during the recording of their statements, the witness clarified that only the first accused was initially present. The second and third accused were reportedly brought in at a later stage.
The defense pressed further, questioning whether the accused had legal representation during the statement recordings. The witness acknowledged that no lawyer was present at the beginning, and while one arrived later, the defense argued that this lawyer did not provide active legal assistance during the initial interrogation.
A document labeled Exhibit B1–25 was tendered in court. The witness testified that the document had been passed to him by a colleague and was not originally authored by him, though it was in his custody.
While the witness stated he had taken a charge statement from the accused, the State Counsel objected, claiming that no formal charge statement was present in the official case file.
In a surprising move, Defense Counsel Baratay first requested an adjournment, then suddenly decided to proceed. This prompted Magistrate Kekura to object to the confusion and inconsistency caused by the defense. Citing procedural irregularities, he adjourned the matter.
The case is set to continue on May 27, 2025, for further hearings.
