Enclosure 2 in No. 9. 
In THE FULL COURT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COLONY OF 
SIERRA LEONE. 
Rex v. Salle Silla. 
and 
Rex v. M’fa Nonko and others. 
JUDGMENT. 
On the 31st day of August, 1896, a Protectorate was proclaimed 
over the territories adjacent to the Colony of Sierra Leone. 
On the 16th September, Ordinance (1896) No. 20 of 1896 was 
oassed to exercise and provide (as stated in the preamble) for 
giving effect to all such jurisdiction as Her Majesty may at any 
time before or after the passing of the Order in Council of the 
25th of August, 1895, have acquired in the territories adjacent to 
she Colony of Sierra Leone. 
Part III of that Ordinance dealt with ‘‘ Slave dealing, &c.”’ 
Shortly that part— 
(1) Made dealing in slaves unlawful; 
2) Provided that persons brought into the Protectorate for 
slave dealing purposes shall be free ; 
8) Permitted slaves to purchase their freedom ; 
f4) Provided penalties for certain offences connected with 
slave dealing. 
[t will be seen from a perusal of Part III that there was at the 
.anception of the Protectorate no attempt to make the holding of 
slaves illegal or even to provide that the children of slaves should be 
free. The aim of the legislature at that time appears to have been 
to prohibit the transfer of slaves. 
The present law relating to slave dealing, &ec., is contained in 
Part II of Cap. 167, as amended by Ordinance 9 of 1926. These 
provisions are to a great extent a reproduction of the provisions 
contained in Ordinance 20 of 1896, although it must be said that 
Ordinance No. 1 of 1926 marks an advance on the then existing 
law by providing that children of slaves are to be free and that 
when a slave owner dies his slaves shall be free. It is clear that 
the status of slavery has not been abolished in the Protectorate and 
the existence of slavery thereof is recognised by necessary 
mplication. Slavery in the Protectorate is a creature of native 
law and there can be no doubt that according to native law an owner 
an re-capture a run-away slave. It has been argued that the re- 
capture of a slave is an assault and therefore the offence of assault 
has been committed by Salla Silla, and that the defendants in the 
other case have been guilty of conspiracy and assault by the Law 
f England which applies to the Protectorate by virtue of the 
1029 0a