By Foday Moriba Conteh
The High Court in Freetown on Friday, 28th November 2025, witnessed a tense and revealing session in the ongoing murder trial of Abdul Kpaka. The matter, presided over by Justice Alfred Ganda in Court No. 1, resumed with the continuation of the defense’s cross-examination of the lead police investigator, Detective Inspector Amara ;an exchange that exposed troubling gaps, inconsistencies and signs of possible bias in the police investigation.
Proceedings opened with clarifications regarding earlier testimony on who had custody of the deceased’s body during the investigation. Although D/Insp. Amara eventually insisted the police were in charge, that claim clashed sharply with testimony from the Virtues Funeral Home Manager, who said the police never contacted or visited them about the corpse. Their account corroborated that of PW2, Sylvester Patrick Kamara, who testified that he, not the police, coordinated the autopsy arrangements and transported the body to Connaught Hospital on 16th August 2024.
Lead Defense Counsel, E.T. Koroma, confronted the police witness with the contents of the autopsy request letter submitted as part of the investigation. The letter stated that the deceased, Sia Fatu Kamara, was “found lying down dead” and that foul play was suspected. When asked where that information came from, D/Insp. Amara failed to provide a clear source and merely described it as an “allegation.”
E.T. Koroma pointed out that no witness, including the complainant or the accused, ever made such a statement. He accused the police of inserting misleading information “in total variance with the facts” in order to influence the medical examiner’s findings. The police witness could not refute the claim, insisting only that there was no intent to mislead.
Evidence before the court shows that Sia Kamara fell, was rushed to Emergency Hospital unconscious, declared clinically dead after a failed CPR procedure and later taken home for prayers. The body remained at the funeral home for three days before autopsy; facts omitted from the police autopsy request. The Defense argued that such omissions cast doubt on the objectivity and thoroughness of the police investigation.
Under cross-examination, D/Insp. Amara conceded that both the accused and PW1, Christiana (the deceased’s sister), stated that Sia had a heart condition that sometimes caused difficulty breathing. He also confirmed that a heart infection medication (Metronidazole) was found in her bag during a police search.
The Defense argued that these facts further weaken the murder allegation, as no evidence directly links Abdul Kpaka to her death.
Pressed by E.T. Koroma, D/Insp. Amara admitted that the police had no direct evidence connecting the accused to the death. He instead cited “corroborative evidence,” including statements from witnesses, hospital outpatient records, the cause of death certificate and materials obtained during a search warrant. The defense insisted none of these documents accused Abdul Kpaka of killing Sia.
In a startling moment, D/Insp. Amara stated: “I do not believe the defendant when he said he was not guilty… but I believed the complainant’s account.”
That admission drew concern across the courtroom, raising questions about the investigator’s neutrality and whether bias influenced the handling of the case.
Cross-examination revealed that by the time Abdul Kpaka was charged, statements had not been obtained from:
- The Emergency Hospital nurses who treated Sia
- The doctor who pronounced her clinically dead
- The funeral home Management who embalmed and stored the corpse
Those statements were only gathered two months later; long after the case had already been before the court and witnesses had begun testifying.
Surprisingly, D/Insp. Amara claimed he did not know whether the corpse had been embalmed before autopsy, stating only that he knew it was “preserved.” Defense Counsel argued that this lack of clarity further undermined the investigative rigour expected in a murder inquiry.
When questioned about whether the police ever requested a forensic examination of the body or visited the house where Sia was taken for prayers, the investigator admitted they did not. No explanation was provided as to why such critical investigative steps were skipped.
With no additional prosecution witnesses available after the cross-examination, Defense Counsel reminded Justice Ganda of two pending rulings on the bail application and a request for a case stated to the Supreme Court. The judge again postponed his decision, promising to deliver the rulings at the next hearing.
The matter was adjourned to Wednesday, 10th December 2025, when the prosecution is expected to present its next witness.
