Claim: A viral Facebook post by Born 2 Blog claims that the High Court of Sierra Leone sentenced a 24-year-old woman, Kadija Kamara, to 11 months in prison simply for eating food at a restaurant without paying.
Verdict: Misleading! While the woman was reportedly sentenced to 11 months’ imprisonment, checks by DUBAWA indicate she was not incarcerated for her failure to pay for food. Rather she was found guilty of offences relating to the unlawful taking, use, or obtaining of another person’s property or services.
Full Text
A Facebook post circulating widely by Born2Blog claims that a 24-year-old woman, Kadija Kamara, was sentenced by the High Court in Freetown to 11 months in prison after she allegedly ate food at a restaurant without paying.
The post narrates that she had accompanied her boyfriend to a restaurant, but he left without paying, leaving her unable to settle the bill. It further suggests that she was arrested and imprisoned solely because she could not pay for the food.
The story has generated public sympathy and outrage, with many users questioning the fairness of Sierra Leone’s justice system.
However, given the serious legal implications of imprisonment, DUBAWA sought to verify whether the sentence was indeed based solely on failure to pay for food.
Verification
DUBAWA contacted a legal practitioner at the Law Officers’ Department in Sierra Leone for clarification.
In response, the lawyer, Rolandson Harding Esq, stated:
“It is not accurate… The Defendant was charged under s. 27(2) of the Larceny Act 1916, which creates a serious offence… Not for eating and failing to pay… that is inaccurate!!!”
This clarification directly contradicts the viral claim.
A review of Section 27(2) of the Larceny Act 1916 shows that the provision criminalises conduct involving entry into premises with intent to commit a felony, which is a far more serious offence than mere non-payment for services.
Section 27 (2) of the Larceny Act of 1916 – Cap 27 Imperial Statutes (Criminal Law) Adopted.
Legally, this distinction is critical. Failing to pay for food on its own may amount to a civil issue or minor offence, but where there is intent to defraud or commit a felony, the matter becomes criminal, attracting more severe legal consequences.
The Larceny Act 1916 is a key piece of criminal legislation that governs offences relating to the unlawful taking, use, or obtaining of another person’s property or services in Sierra Leone.
It defines crimes such as stealing, obtaining goods by false pretences, and other forms of dishonesty involving property, and sets out the penalties and legal consequences for such offences.
In lieu of the above, the suspect was not charged with unpaid fees for a plate of rice. She was caught red-handed with master keys, which she used to break into an office and disconnect electrical equipment in readiness for stealing at night. She was caught red-handed in the office, waiting for her boyfriend, with whom she had conspired to return at night to cart away the stolen items.
Therefore, the sentence cannot be accurately described as punishment “simply for eating without paying”, as suggested in the viral post.
Conclusion
The claim that Kadija Kamara was jailed for 11 months simply for eating food without paying is misleading.
Available legal clarification shows that the case involved a more serious criminal charge under the Larceny Act 1916, not just failure to pay for a meal. The viral post oversimplifies and distorts the legal basis of the conviction, thereby giving the public a misleading impression of the justice system.