Poro and the Upper Guinea Coast

Poro and its associated societies such as Sande, Sumoe, and Bili all act to control and maintain the boundaries between the realm of spirits and the material sphere of humanity, ritually inducting youths into an accepted otherworld for their initiations before returning them to the world of their families, changed by their contact with the spirits. Each society possesses a sphere of influence––for Poro, it is the initiation of young males. This initiation marks the transition from childhood to adulthood, and serves not only to cement social ties but also to educate youths about their role in society and the expectations which are to surround them for their lives as adults. In the early nineteenth century, the word “purrah” was generally used to describe the West African secret society reserved primarily for boys. Captain C. Braithwaite Wallis, a former militia officer from England who worked as a tax collector in the hinterlands of Sierra Leone, described Poro in a 1905 article, stating that “Poro” directly meant “law,” and from personal experience, he defined the society as being “the governing and ruling power of the natives, and embodies everything or anything good or bad in the country, that requires framing into order, keeping secret among the masses, guarding as public property, and making into law” (Wallis Reference Wallis1905:183). Christopher Fyfe’s history of Sierra Leone defines the governing role of Poro as being consistent throughout the history of the region, and as serving to frame social order. “Its origins like its mysteries remain hidden from the uninitiated… it kept the country quiet, enforced obedience to its orders, and forbade woman and the uninitiated to witness its rites” (Fyfe Reference Fyfe1962:3). This level of secrecy lent credence to colonial fears concerning cannibalism or any other ritual behavior which they as outsiders could only imagine, forbidden as they were by taboo to witness what took place in Poro meetings. Perhaps more importantly, the pervasive and longstanding Poro authority regionally presented a direct challenge to British hegemony and ambitions within the Protectorate.

Poro further works as a judiciary, enforcing cultural norms and adjudicating wrongdoing, often leading to execution. Some evidence suggests that those who were responsible for such executions were those inducted into the Leopard Society, making them essentially enforcers of Poro. Diplomacy and matters of alliances between chiefdoms was also a Poro matter as with its central organizing function during the Hut Tax War. However, what was even more of a challenge to British ideas of government and centralized structures of authority was that the nature of Poro was unlike European systems of authority (Fulton Reference Fulton1972:1218–1219). The Poro society’s activities, specifically their consumption of human beings, has been remarked upon by George Harley and subsequent scholars, but the evidence behind that assertion can be difficult to prove.

Poro was and remains an organization which educates, governs, and regulates life throughout this large region spanning multiple ethnic groups, but it is not itself a singular centralized government. When boys reach a certain age, they are removed from their families to enter the “Poro bush,” an initiation camp where they are subject to masked adult males; these men, in the guise of spirits, educate the youths concerning the roles to be played in their adult lives. Richard Fulton observed that for many outsiders, only the location within which boys learned their adult roles was generally seen:

The “bush school” and its role in education, together with the hierarchies of men who run it, tend to be agreed upon in their general composition between scholars after Harley. Each Poro is slightly different, depending upon which ethnic group practices it, but all share the function of the forest initiation camp or “bush school,” and the fundamental hierarchy of initiation through ranks within Poro. For smaller chiefdoms without a sanctified forest area, ritual observances have to be met through the aid of a neighboring Poro initiation camp, as seen in the testimony from the case at hand; the removal of the boys from their original school was central to the murder, as it removed them from the normal initiatory practice and the oversight of Society authorities.

Recognizing the initiation camp’s importance and how even an outsider could not fail to know its function and meaning locally became a matter later on in the case discussed here. One of the accused, the Alimani Kalfalla, states that he was taken to the initiation camp’s sacred precincts and was deeply fearful for his life, while the events of the case took place after initiates were removed from their assigned school.

The Human Leopards

Later beliefs concerning anthrophagus elements within Poro offer a complication of efforts to clearly differentiate Human Leopards from Poro Society members, and deserve mention for that reason alone, as the conflation of the two by barristers who presided over this series of trials is troubling.^{Footnote 8} In Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone, it was Poro which acted to regulate all matters concerning adult males, and the connections between Poro and the Leopard Societies was a matter of concern to the Christian government officials for reasons both religious and political. The belief seemed to be, among the barristers like Beatty who were engaged in these cases, that every member of Poro was a Human Leopard, and every Human Leopard was a member of Poro (Beatty Reference Beatty1915:20; Gray Reference Gray1916:196). This assumption would have been difficult to disprove, as a major element of the Society is its secrecy even today, but was clearly an oversimplification and misunderstanding of a very much more complex system. Anthropologists and ethnologists studying Poro have found it difficult to examine in large part due to the taboo against allowing outsiders to understand the hierarchy and rituals of the society. However, scholars of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century did differentiate between Poro and the Human Leopards, and noted that various chiefs had considered the Human Leopards a criminal group. That Beatty was either unaware of these conclusions or disregarded them is notable.

According to evidence given at the enquiry before Sir D. P. Chalmers into the insurrection in Sierra Leone in 1898, it appears that about 1880–81 the chief of Tyama detected nearly 100 members, and burnt them. In 1883–84 a chief of Mano, called Cardini, burnt a sub-chief and about 80 others as members, and there are other instances. Nevertheless the society survived, and it was found necessary in 1896 to pass “The Human Leopard and Alligator Society Ordinance” for its suppression.^{Footnote 9}

To the British barristers and legislators involved with the colony and governance, Poro was a challenge and threat to civil society, and the “Human Leopard Society” specifically was an overtly cannibalistic group which “terrorised large provinces of the Protectorate” (Gray Reference Gray1916:196). The Special Court cases and the widespread arrests and punishments for those found guilty are treated by such accounts as a reasonable response to an “outbreak” of supposedly “suppressed” secret societies (Newland Reference Newland1916:130). Again, this narrative and the language which was used during this period to stigmatize membership in what had been a form of regional government should be considered in light of British ambitions within the inland regions of Sierra Leone at that point.^{Footnote 10} This rhetoric must also been seen within the narrative of colonization as a civilizing factor, with ritual murder, possible cannibalism, and human sacrifice all serving as examples of the “barbaric” in need of European enlightenment.^{Footnote 11} That said, it should not be over-emphasized that the British colonial authorities were targeting Poro directly or even consciously. As Thomas Spear has argued, colonial use of customary laws and the expansion of judicial systems over outlying regions is often examined and framed in ways which overstate the efforts of the colonial rulers to establish a hegemony (Spear Reference Spear2003:5–6). In practice, Spear suggests that cultural traditions and judicial practices are shaped by far more complex factors and tensions. This is supported by the various social, religious, and colonial pressures visible in this single case.

R. V. Fino, Bofio and Kalfalla

This trial was held at Gbangbama in the Northern Sherbro District and Imperri Chiefdom (See Figure 1) in December of 1912 and into 1913 according to Beatty, and the Court comprised Sir William Brandford Griffith (Chief Justice of the Gold Coast until 1911) and Acting Attorney Generals Van der Meulen and Beatty.^{Footnote 12} The charges laid concern a so-called leopard murder in the spring of 1911; testimony places it as approximately two years prior, but the overall timing is unclear within the transcript. Four young men entered into the “Forro bush” of Senehun under the Poro headman or Kumrabui Senesi that year, summoned by a “Forro Devil” to enter into their initiation.^{Footnote 13} However, for reasons which are given variously during the testimony but which tend toward needing help with farm work like the planting of rice, Fino, and his close friend Bofio went to the initiation camp to recover the four boys––Momo Baraka, Joe, Bangaun, and the victim, Kalfalla the son of Fino. According to Bangaun, Fino argued vehemently to move the boys from the Senehun Poro camp to the Kale forest camp, begging and pleading with Senesi before it was permitted. Fino was the headman of Kale, and his line reportedly held that rank due to the authority of the Alimani Kalfalla and his predecessors at Mongheri, while both answered to the Paramount Chief Bunting Williams. Fino elected to have the boys undergo their initiation at Kale, reportedly building a structure for them to remain within to preserve their ritual isolation. His justification was his need for the boys for agriculture, and he reportedly swore to preserve their ritual isolation during this period.

Figure 1. Map of Region with Places Marked

However, the structure he had the young men sleep in proved to be infested with insects (jiggers), and upon discovering this, Joe’s account states that Fino ordered them to sleep in a barry (a cleared area with walls built at the back and sides) near the town by the Kale Poro camp. Notably, a law is mentioned later in the trial which penalized sleeping in an open place like a barry, but Fino nonetheless had the boys move there. The barry belonged to Fino, and each boy slept on a mat on the ground for four nights.

On the fourth night, after the Alimani Kalfalla had come that day, Momo Baraka woke the rest of the group and the local people by crying out that a “kori” had caught the boy Kalfalla. The victim was agreed to have suffered a considerable wound to his face, literally tearing or cutting the cheek open enough that witnesses stated that they could see his teeth through his cheek. Additionally, Kalfalla’s throat had been slit so that it gaped wide, and a stab wound was present in his skull. The town was roused, and Fino, his friend Bofio, and Kalfalla of Mongheri took counsel with the other men, some of whom took the time to examine the body. Fino’s step-son Bangali indicates that upon the discovery of the murder, Fino wept and cried out. It was decided to bury Kalfalla hastily, and to tell the story if asked that his death had been a tragic accident caused by a snake bite, although the explanation for this decision was unclear and varied from witness to witness. This was a flagrant violation of Poro law, and Senesi, whose Poro camp the victim had been removed from, took umbrage at the way in which the town’s headman had chosen to bury the young initiate. Senesi demanded that the victim be unburied for examination, and eventually required a heavy bribe not to pressure Fino further. This was the agreed-upon narrative of the events which took place that March on the fourth night of the initiates in the barry near Fino’s home by the Kale Poro camp near the town of Kale. Fino and Bofio were accused of the murder and of belonging to the Leopard Society, while Kalfalla of Mongheri was accused of covering up their crime and of also being a Human Leopard.

Examination, Analysis, and Cross-Examination

Notable features begin to emerge from the details of the testimony upon a closer examination. Religious differences emerge, with the revelation that the Crown’s primary witness is Muslim, though he was sworn to tell the truth by the “Mendi religious oath.” Kalfalla of Mongheri, also a Muslim, claimed that he endured a level of persecution for his beliefs from Poro members who had given testimony at that stage of the proceedings, presenting a fascinating glimpse of ongoing tensions in that region of Sierra Leone at that time and distinguishing himself from testimony by Poro members asserting that he was trusted to enter the initiation camp. Perhaps the most intriguing narrative which gradually emerges is that of Momo Baraka himself, presented by the defense as a rebellious slave of Fino who had already fled to Freetown once only to be reportedly brought back to Kale by Fino and his step-son Bangali. He is also later revealed to have been himself a Human Leopard, having joined that group after the murder, and having been convicted and turning Crown witness.^{Footnote 14} Unlike his comrade Joe, who willingly agrees that he belongs to Fino as a slave alongside Baraka, Momo Baraka’s choice to bring evidence against a man revealed conclusively to be his owner is noteworthy for the purposes of analysis in the context of domestic slavery within Sierra Leone.

As each witness is introduced into the record, they were sworn to speak the truth, and it is within this portion of the transcript that regional tensions between Poro members and Muslims are made clear. For the majority of those who speak, their oath is defined as either the “country oath” or “swearing by Mendi.” The colonial authorities were well aware of what they called medicines, and demanded that Mende witnesses say the following words:

Only three of the men examined took another oath, and their circumstances make their testimony of particular interest. Momo Baraka was first given the “country oath,” but was then called back and examined later on during the trial when it was discovered that he was Muslim.

Kalfalla of Mongheri, one of the accused, swore on the Qu’ran, as did Baraka’s former master Bokari. Kalfalla claimed persecution by the Poro members despite holding high status as Alimani of Mongheri under which Kale was controlled. He claimed that he was intimidated by the other men to acquiesce to their plan of a hasty burial of the victim, and that his fears of the Poro society had kept him isolated from the rest of the townsfolk.

According to Kalfalla, his presence in the Poro initiation camp at Kale, reported upon by every other witness, was due to having been tricked into following others there, and when he realized where he was, he was terrified. He believed, he explains, that the Poro men intended to do him some injury within the sacred space. Only Poro men, Kalfalla testified, ever go to the camp, and he was manifestly not of the same belief system nor a member of the society. Kalfalla also makes an allusion to his understanding of the nature of Poro membership in his estimation:

This statement is of particular interest, and it is unfortunate that the only language here is English in translating Kalfalla’s association of “Forro” with cannibalism. Whether this connection arose from the charges which Kalfalla had been accused of, and the awareness that for the Europeans at least, Human Leopards bore some association to the “Forro” and both implied cannibalism, or whether his denial refers to a deeper belief stemming from the fears he claims to have felt as a Muslim living within a community which he felt had persecuted him is a question which is difficult to answer, but which must be posed for consideration. It also represents a decision by Kalfalla to publicly declare himself against the local Poro members.

The primary evidence for identification offered by the Crown to designate a member of the Human Leopards was a physical demonstration of scarification “proof” by the convicted Human Leopard Vandi whom the Crown brought to examine each of the accused.^{Footnote 15} (See Figure 2) Vandi, a Vai man from Galinhas, and his fellow convicted cannibal Kong Xangba agreed in finding two marks each on Fino and Bofio, but both expert witnesses were unable to find any conclusive examples of the correct scar on Kalfalla’s body, though they found potential marks which Kalfalla explained were the remnants of a smallpox infection. On Fino, Xangba took considerable time to find marks, as the court prompted him to look further, demonstrating coaching in evidence to a troublesome degree. On Bofio, both expert witnesses located marks on the right buttock and the right shoulder near the top of the arm. The marks were described in detail both on the witnesses and on the accused, and it was agreed that while Kalfalla’s scars were inconclusive, Fino and Bofio’s scars bore a noticeable similarity both to one another and to those present on the bodies of the cannibal expert witnesses.^{Footnote 16} Vandi’s and Kong Xangba’s examination of the accused provided the court with a “solid” foundation for conviction, though the proof they had thus gained was further without real weight after both testified on the stand that they were unaware that they even were Human Leopards, and that their identification as such had come about because of British interference:

Figure 2. “Human Leopard” scar

Vandi and Kong Xangba ultimately acted to support the evidence which the crown’s star witness, Momo Baraka, had earlier given under a non-binding oath, and their testimony was only offered under considerable coaching by the Crown. Moreover, their status as convicted Human Leopards who were evidently unaware of their crimes prior to British intervention is notable. Why the colonial court and officials decided that these men were Human Leopards is not fully explained within the court documents of the time, but demonstrates the British colonial legal process’s serious problems. Ultimately, the court found the accused all guilty, and Fino and Bofio were hanged, while the Alimani Kalfalla was sentenced to hard labor. Despite the grief which Beatty later described Fino clearly showing over the death of his son, the victim, and despite no clear motive at any time indicated beyond obedience to the Leopard Society and ritual murder, the court clearly found the case compelling enough to merit execution and imprisonment.

Momo Baraka and Shifting Social Status

Momo Baraka was the sole witness to the murder itself, and he named Fino and Bofio as the killers. His problematic status and the possible motives he may have had were never described or discussed in Beatty’s published account. When asked about Fino’s relative status to him, Baraka’s answer is simple: “He is not my friend––he is not my equal.” He disavowed any meaningful connection to Fino, despite other witnesses variously answering that Baraka was Fino’s son, servant, boy, or slave.^{Footnote 17} He described himself as being older than Joe, Bangaun, or Kalfalla “by a head.” It was Baraka who claimed that Fino was wearing a leopard skin as he grappled with the victim Kalfalla, his son. It was he who explained that he heard footsteps of men in the bush––not animals. Moreover, as the sole witness to the crime, Baraka swore that he had been made to promise his silence on the Borfima itself by Bofio, friend to Fino, and Lamin Goba. He claimed that his heart and liver would be taken if he broke this oath, but that his sense of duty to the country itself overcame his fear and caused him to testify against those who had demanded his oath. Like the rest, Baraka described the wounds, and while other elements of his testimony are unique, the condition of the corpse was consistent with the others examined.

Momo Baraka is described by the other witnesses to be a foreigner from the Galinhas region, and a slave, but under oath, again and again he refused the latter designation:

Not unlike the microhistory followed by Paolo Gaibazzi, Baraka uses his testimony to try to reframe himself, refusing the title of slave (Gaibazzi Reference Gaibazzi2016). Joe calls him Fino’s slave, but also notes that he is an outsider. The court was evidently concerned about the inherent motives of their eyewitness, and called the man who was revealed to have first owned Baraka and sold him to Fino. Bokari’s testimony makes Baraka’s self-identification intriguing in the extreme, for like Joe, he confirms that Baraka had indeed been his slave:

This case’s evidence makes it clear that Baraka was a young man who was either born into Islam or converted by his Muslim first master Bokari, but was then sold to Fino, who was not Muslim. Furthermore, his enslavement seems to be related to a system of pawning or to a loan. As Allen Howard (1994:267) has noted, Sierra Leone’s systems of pawnship served as a means of shifting labor and products from one place to another. Pawnship within this case is an important element; by moving the group of young men back to Kale, Fino was shifting their labor with them. Baraka’s described enslavement as a child resembles the pawning of children which was prevalent during this period as the British tried to suppress the slave trade, making pawning itself illegal when the Protectorate was declared in 1896. Baraka, older by a head than the three teenagers present that night, was born prior to that declaration, and the ambiguities in how he is described within the testimony emphasizes the fluidity between pawning, wardship, and enslavement which Howard elaborates upon and which John Grace described (Howard Reference Howard, Falola and Lovejoy1994:270; Grace Reference Grace1975:13–14). Pawning children for a debt was deemed to be slave dealing, and was criminalized in the early twentieth century, but that is clearly what served as the cause of Baraka’s initial enslavement from the evidence brought by his former master Bokari. It is possible also that Baraka’s seizure by Fino from Bokari may have been more closely related to the practice of panyarring, which Benjamin Lawrance (2014:103–105) explains often involved the capture of pawns or slaves from a debtor by the individual to whom the debt was owed, or that his relationship to Fino was one of bonding, although no debts are ever mentioned by Bokari or Fino.

Importantly, despite his stated beliefs, from the testimony, Baraka had been initiated into Poro recently. As he self-identifies as a Muslim, it may be that he had been initiated as a control mechanism after his unsuccessful attempt at freedom. Given the status of slavery at this point in Sierra Leone’s history, it is puzzling that Baraka had actually fulfilled the requirements to achieve his emancipation by reaching the soil of the Colony, but within the court, he was still defined by his status as Fino’s slave––a status he rejected.^{Footnote 18} The narrative which these factors present strongly suggests that much of the most damning evidence against Fino was provided by a slave fighting for a freedom which in his estimation he had already acquired when he escaped to Freetown. His subsequent return to his master may have been a considerable motivation to find another way of emancipating himself from Fino. In his initial testimony, it is Fino who is described as having journeyed to Freetown to retrieve Baraka, while Joe’s testimony states that Baraka was indeed a slave, ran away to Freetown, and was returned by Fino and Bangali. Bangali himself states that Baraka accompanied Bokari to Kale, and remained in Kale after Bokari left, as servant to Bokari’s aunt Yema, who had become Fino’s wife. Following her departure to Mattru, Fino kept Baraka, according to Bangali, and Baraka had to be retrieved from Freetown after he fled there.

Slavery within Sierra Leone occupied an ambiguous position at the time of this case. Indeed, domestic slavery was only abolished in the entirety of the region in 1928, after years of effort, and after the League of Nations took notice of legislation permitting slave-owners the right to capture runaway slaves (League of Nations 1927; Little Reference Little1955:14). After the Hut Tax War of 1898, one of the ways that colonial officials like Cardew worked to explain and understand the causes for the insurrection was to claim that it was symptomatic of a rejection of British governance, and an effort to protect traditions of slave-dealing. Alongside the claims that the rebellious chiefs wished to return to widespread slavery were concerns regarding what can only be understood to be Poro membership. The British effort to stamp out slavery was a gradual one after the Hut Tax War, according to Grace, who argues that Cardew did not wish to spark another such conflict. As a result, a slower approach was taken in the Protectorate in the early twentieth century to eliminate slavery and pawnship (Grace Reference Grace1975:70–2). Between 1870 and the 1920s, Howard states that there were no serious food shortages to stimulate extensive labor transfers such as pawning or enslavement, which partially served to reduce these forms of exploitative labor regionally at this time.^{Footnote 19} Slave-dealing and raiding were increasingly illegal, although domestic slavery was acceptable. Should a slave escape and make it to the Colony, he or she was legally entitled to claim freedom.^{Footnote 20} This legal means of emancipation, and Baraka’s failure at achieving his liberation despite successfully reaching Freetown, emphasizes why he might seek alternatives.

Evidence which arose during the summation by the defense included the facts that Baraka’s account was given after he had become a King’s witness, and that he was an admitted Human Leopard himself. There is a large piece therefore missing to our appreciation of this case, as the particulars of Baraka’s arrest on charges of association with the society are only mentioned at this point. The court recognizes the potential motivations for Baraka’s evidence after the defense brings these matters up, but nonetheless accepts it and sets it into the record as the accurate rendition of the facts of the case:

This summary offers an additional twist by mentioning Momo Baraka’s circumcision—as a Muslim, Momo Baraka should have been circumcised long before the events of this case. How he was suffering the effects despite being an avowed Muslim with a former owner who was himself Muslim is perplexing, and no additional explanation was offered to clarify this peculiarity. Poro members were circumcised upon their initiation, considerably later than is the customary practice for Muslims (Harley Reference Harley1941:7). With Baraka having been pawned to Bokari’s family as a child and agreeing that he was a Muslim, it is peculiar that he would only be circumcised in adulthood. Whether Poro was being used by Fino as a possible means of controlling his rebellious slave is a question which the document does not provide answers to. Indeed, whether Baraka willingly entered into Poro as another means of changing his social status cannot be ignored either.

British Hegemony and Leopard-Men

Due to the composition of Sierra Leone’s first settlers, the English Common Law was dominant in the Freetown peninsula, and efforts were made to gradually implement it throughout the nineteenth century.^{Footnote 21} In 1896, the British Protectorate was declared over the so-called hinterland, essentially claiming all territories not already under a French or Liberian influence. The long-standing divisions between the Colony and the Protectorate were very much in evidence in the early twentieth century, and intersections between the two regions were due to the role of the westernized Krio, who navigated between the spheres and spread views largely in line with the Colony’s way of thought. These men and women tended to be educated, Westernized, and Christian, and worked primarily among Temne and Mende who were Muslims or belonged to Poro. It should be noted that according to Beatty, the Special Commission Court at Gbangbama had European triers of fact and Crowns, but Krio members of the bar serving as defense for the accused. Understandably, tensions and problems of enforcement of laws or acceptance for British governmental authority were hardly uniform (Little Reference Little1955:14, 16–17).

Courts in Sierra Leone saw criminal matters in a fashion very like the English Common Law of the time with some minor variations.^{Footnote 22} As Martin Chanock has noted, however, criminal law in this period was often conceived of and implemented in terms which reinforced the colonial elite’s primacy while emphasizing the “degeneracy” of subject populations.^{Footnote 23} For the most part, criminal cases in Sierra Leone after the Hut Tax War were heard by judges as opposed to juries as a result of the Ordinances of 1898 (Jearey Reference Jearey1960:37). Trials by jury in Sierra Leone were primarily confined to “those parts of the territories which are (or were) colonies (as opposed to protectorates)” (Jearey Reference Jearey1960:398). The Ordinances reported during this period increasingly demonstrate a profound concern with the Human Leopard Society by the legal authorities in the colony, although whether this increase in proposed legislation was due to attempts to address an increase in reported murders, or was due to colonial efforts to control the Poro Society is never explicitly stated.^{Footnote 24}

During this time period, a veritable spate of trials and convictions took place in various West African countries, revolving around the notion of the “cannibalistic savage” which had maintained a place in the European psyche since antiquity (Gray Reference Gray1916:197; Rich Reference Rich2001:619–638; Pratten Reference Pratten2007). The targets of these trials tended to be identified as having some symbolic connection ideologically with leopards, and were described by authorities as “men-leopards,” “leopard-men,” or “human leopards.” The concept of ritualized murders gave the colonial authorities an excellent reason to extend the sphere of their authority more stringently, and in short order, even affiliation with a Leopard Society was cause for the gravest punishment the legal systems could offer (Zehnle Reference Zehnle and Nance2015:222–223). As Rosalind Shaw (2002:226–229) has examined, some of the earliest European accounts of Sierra Leone report instances of cannibalism and the consumption of human flesh. The account by former Chief Justice Griffith presents a clear example of the sense of unease which European authorities brought to bear even as presumably impartial triers of fact, which lends a problematic nuance especially given Griffith’s past rulings concerning other accused human leopards elsewhere:

The targets for this Commission primarily belonged to the Poro Society, which fundamentally existed beyond the space which the British authorities could easily conceptualize in a European framework. In effect, the Poro Society presented a rival authority which the British had already seen at work during the Hut Tax War of 1898 and had good reason to try to nullify. The way in which Poro was practiced and understood as a quasi-governmental system and the motivation for these Human Leopard trials should not be considered separately from the events of the Hut Tax War, which aggravated tensions between colony and Protectorate. During the lead-up to the conflict, Poro was the unifying factor which afforded the rebellious Temne and Mende chiefs who rose up a means of resisting British control.^{Footnote 25} Cardew had openly set himself against Poro by making it illegal to place a Poro-driven injunction against palm-trees (as had happened in late 1897, affecting production considerably) (Hargreaves Reference Hargreaves1956:68). The legislation against Human Leopards in the early twentieth century may have been a more carefully couched challenge by the colonial government, but due to misunderstanding of the society by the British judiciary, it was in effect another attack on Poro.

The prevalence of Poro and the ongoing narrative which had been circulated in the early twentieth century, as well as all efforts to conflate Human Leopards with Poro, ultimately led to a targeting of the society by the Acts and legislation passed by the governing bodies in Sierra Leone in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. These laws specifically banned membership in the Leopard Society, which colonial officials stated was synonymous with membership in Poro, making it illegal to possess anything which the authorities believed indicated such membership.^{Footnote 26} The justification was the fear of cannibalism. Notable in this legislation are the instruments which legislators believed were essential elements of this criminalized group (Beatty Reference Beatty1915:7). The knife used to kill victims whose flesh was to be variously eaten or used in preparing or treating the so-called “borfima,” as well as a leopard-skin, were illicit possessions for anyone to own, lest they indicate membership.^{Footnote 27} According to Beatty, a “borfima” was a leather bag, which contained “the white of an egg, the blood, fat, and other parts of a human being, the blood of a cock, and a few grains of rice; but to make it efficacious it must occasionally be anointed with human fat and smeared with human blood” (Beatty Reference Beatty1915:23). This process described would, according to Beatty, (who claims to have heard it described in case after case brought before him) make the owner all-powerful, and capable of enforcing Poro oaths sworn before him or her.

By 1912, further amendments were made to the Ordinance, and provided for the Court and for the death sentence to be handed down by it:

While Beatty mentions the strict added articles which were added to Ordinance 15 which gave his fellow barristers their mandate, he does not mention the capital punishment that was only added for the Special Court in 1912.