Thirty-eight years old Musa Turay former teacher at the St. Joseph Secondary School made another appearance before Justice Alhaji Momoh Jah Stevens on two different file containing the same offence of sexual penetration contrary to section 19 of the Sexual Offences Act 2012 Act No.12 of 2012 as repealed and replaced by section 4 (iii) of the Sexual Offences Amendment Act 2019 Act No.8 of 2019 and sexual abuse by person in trust contrary to section 21 (1) (a) of the Sexual Offences Act 2012 Act No.12 of 2012.

According to the particulars of offence on a date between 1st February and 14th March, 2024 in Freetown engaged in an act of sexual penetration with a child.

Count two further stated that on the same date and place, the accused being in a position of trust to a child engaged in an act of sexual penetration with the said child.

The charges were read and explained to the accused person on both files but he pleaded not guilty.

The defense counsel Claudius Campbell said the accused Musa Turay is resident at Tengbe Town and a former teacher at the St. Joseph Secondary School. According to him he teaches Integrated Science at the junior school and was a form teacher of JSS3T and the victim was one of his pupils in his class where he was a form teacher on a date between 1st February and 14th March, 2024. The witness said on 14th March, 2024 he was called by the school authorities including the acting principal and told him that the victim informed them about what transpired between them. The witness said he told the principal that the allegation was not true, adding that he has been a teacher at the said school for seventeen years and nothing like such has ever happened. He said he has never been in formal relationship with the victim.

He recalled when the police officer who took photographs of the victim testified in court on the previous date. The witness told the court that it was on a Saturday he was taken to the scene of crime with his own vehicle from the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) headquarters at Pademba Road.

During the investigation, he furthered the police informed him about the telephone call he made to the victim.

After his testimony, the state prosecutor Musa Pious Sesay Jr. Esq. cross-examined him if he will be correct to say that his relationship with the victim goes beyond the classroom and he responded in the negative.

“Will I be correct to say that you did help the victim on her assignment,” the defence counsel asked and the witness replied that has never happened.

Am I right to say you’re known to help students with their assignments and the witness again replied that he only help his form student with mathematics when they have exams.

He lawyer further confronted the witness with his statements which the latter admitted to and page five was read to him where he said the victim called him to help her on her assignment which he asked her to wait after school for it not to be examination malpractice. The counsel put it to the witness that has cordial relationship with the victim but the witness said victim she was just his pupil.

“I’m correct to say that at some point the acting principal confronted you with a complaint that was written by the victim?” the defence counsel further asked but the witness answered in the negative.

Meanwhile, Justice Stevens has withdrawn both files to deliver his judgement and asked both the defense and state counsels to submit their replies on 17th March, 2025.