19880806 TZCA Dar es Salaam

\ . ·:•-•. _..._. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF T~Z#,if_IA AT MW.ANZA i,_CORJ>.M.i'. MAK.Ali'!E 2 J oAo 2 KISA.~GA 2 J. A. 2 . And Oi:-W.1 2 ,J .A.) canrnur. .APPEJ.L :rro. 23 of 1988 .ALPHONCE LulUJ3TiiGA s/o K..tJ30KOLO. 0 • • APPELLAI\7T .... •• . . • • t_ -~ Versus TRE RJ?TJBLIC o • • • • • • • • • • " • • RESPONDENT .(Ap:p~~l :ti~om the conviction of the Higl1 Court of T2.1rn2..riia a.t IflW,:ll•IZ.il.) (Ifoti ti, J .. ) dc.ted the 4th dcy of December, 1987 in C1~imin2.l Sessions Ce.se No., 21 of 1986 JUDGI~UTINT OF THD C01JRT The· appellant wn.s convicted of murder contrary to section 196 of the Peri.cl Code,. and wcs. sentenced to death by the High Court (Ke.titi, J~) s1 t"'t ing at !>1wr....nza.. He &"..S now 2.:ppealed c.g.'.1.inst both conviction and sentence. Very briefly, t}1e fects of the cc,se were o..s followsg- The a:ppellc.nt is the grr,ndson of the deceased woman. The two lived in .-. diff'erent villages about ¼ of a mile apart. In the morning of the dcy of the incident, the ~ppellnnt, according to custom, went to greet the deceo..sed but he fou.nd her lying dead just outside the door.of her house .. He reported the matter to the 10-cell leader who advised him to raise n1arm, which he did and the villagers gathered. The villngers turned their suspicion on him and req_ui:red him to explain the decth of the dece~sedo Ile denied e,ny knowledge of how the dece2.sGd died but they pressed n:nd m2.de threats. Whereupon he con.fessed to killing the deceased because she had kil10d his e o o o ,a••• /2~ '\, ,.. I - . 2 p~ents a.nd child throv.gh witchcrn.fto He was then arrested and token to the police station. When the police visited the scene of crime the 2,ppell2.nt wc:s tcl<en clong, and on the Wt;<J the o.ppellwt again confessed the killing to the policeo Ul timntely he wcs tclcen to a justice of the ' pence to whom he m2ilo n.n extra-judicial stnte::aent in which he mnde yet n.nother confession of the killingo In his defence ~t the trio.l the appellant denied the cho.rge and retl·0ctod or I'epudi.:.tod the con:fcssibnso He said thc..t his alleged confession to the villo.f;'G?:S wo.s induced by the villagers threatening .......,- . . r·, i) his l\f00 1~ to his clleged confession to tho police he either do:a.ied mcl.:ing it OI' s~id that it was a continu2,tion of the involuntnry confession which wc..s induced by th(;! villngors. He d;:mied molcing Ol'lY, confession before the justice· of the pee.co o.nd cl2,imed thd the contents of th3 cxtr::-judicial statement wcI'o copied by the justice of the pe2.c0 from tho w;,.•:i.tings whicl'l were handed to him by the police. In o.. co..rofully vJ!ittcm judgement the le<1rned triul judge rejected the o..ppcllo....~t•s defence r.ndy relying on the confessions, convicted tho .:~ppellmt upon finding tJ.12.,t those confessions could not be true. .-;-, Mr., Rug2.rc.bnmu, the learned counsel fo:r- the o,ppell['Jl.t, sought to G.J"'.'gue tho nppeo..l g-enoro..lly in the course of which he pointed out a num1Jo:;:- of features in the evidence which tended to su.ggcst that tho . but confessions on which the conviction wri.s founded could not/be true., \ . i\ir. V. K., D. Lybo, t:10 lo,J.rnod Principal State l~tto:rney a.ppen.ring for the respondent Xepublic vigorously resisted tho appeal, n.nd contended that t~10 judgement of the lem-nod fa•icl judge could not be f2,ul todo Upon examining tlw record ~loselyy a number of issues n.rise which ccll for consideration., First, there is the issue of the admissibility of tho ~ppello.l1t 1 s cxtrc-judicicl at~temont made' to tho justice of tho • • e., o o/3 :~\ 1 ,J 3 peo.cc (PoWo3) in which the o..ppcllnnt is said to have confessed to the ~,-- offence CJ."largodo The i·ecord:':lshows thr~t tho a.ppellc.nt took' the oath -Defore his statement w2,s recorded by tho justice of the pec..ceo Mro Lyimo for tho Ropulllic conceded that this was nn irregulc'.I'ity in a.s much r,s there is no provision in our 12,w which nuthorizos a, magistr2-to or justice of the poc1ce to c;drninister the 02,th to the accused who is broU{;'llt to him for tho recording of 0.n o~rtra-j~dicicl sk,tomcnto Ho contm-1dcd, hm-mvc1·, that such irrcgu.12,ri ty was curable, end for this view he relied 011 the decision of this Co1...1J:'t in tho C[:.Se of Krn1g2.njA July nncl. fillvthcr Vo R, ( 1980) ToL.R .. 2700 - The 102.Xnod counsel sul::mittod tlio.t Kang.?..nja' s c<1so over-ruled the oc.:rlior decision in tho 00,so of Ko.pombo.. 1..ndron. v,, R2 2 T.. LoRo 345 in .-lhich the Court of ..\;_)pocl for Ec,stern .L\.frico.. laid down tho rule to tho effect that who1'0 C!.11 c..ccusod is brought bofo:r-c a mngistr2.to for tho rocord.ing of his· oxtra-judicir.J. st2:.t0mont, no oath should be 2,dministcrod to him except n.t his expressed wish, o.J.1d that if the odh is r.ilministcrod 2-t no expressed wish of his, then the statonont is inc..dmissibl0., With duo to respect to tho lec.rned Principal Sto..te Attorney, wo do not a.g-roo thnt Kc.ngn.nja 1 s case over-ruled Kc-,,pembo..' s ceso~ In Ko.ngn.nj2,t s c2..se, as in tho present co.so, the court -was considering the n.dmissi1)Hi ty of oxtra-judiciru. st:2t0monts which • wore shovm to h~ve boon mo..de by the o.,ccusod persons under oath. Thus in tho oourgc of doing so it considorod the rule in Kapombn 1 s cc.so, which governed tho ii10.ttor, in tho light of _recent legislation o..s contd.nod in section 29 of tho Evidence Let, 1967. That so.ction provides thntg- . "No confession which is tendered in evidence shall be :cojocted on tho ground thd a, promise or thror·.t hr.s boon held out to tho person confessing unless tho • • ~. 0 0. /4•. l ), 4 court is of tho opinion that the ind·..:..cemont wr,s mo.de in such circur.i- sta.nc0s C'J'ld wn.s of such o. nc.tur0 or was likely to cause en untrue 2..dmission of 5Uil t. to be ·mad·o 11 ., J~pplying th0 provisions of this section to tho oxtrn.-judicicl • ! ! st~tomonts under consider~tion, the court found thct there WM not tho slightest suggestion thnt tho circumstc.nces surrounding th0 malcing of those sto.tomonts could h,wo rcsul tod in an untrue cilr!lission of guilt., .L.cco2dingly the court holo. th2.t tho, sk,toments ,--lo ~ wore ndmissible. But this did not QIJlount to over-ruling Ke:,pornb2, 1 s case. Tho true position is th,:.t tho rulo in Kapomk1. 1 s case still remcins pc.,rt of our 1.~w governing this c..spoct of tho me.tto:r-, but section 29 of the L\ridonce 1.ct hc.s introduced a qualific[l.tion to it. In other wo1•ds, v.nder tho rule in K2..pcmb2, 1 s ce'!.so en extra-judicicl st'atomcnt m2.do under oath is ina.draissil)le unless tho oc.th was n.drninistorcd at tl10 eX)?rossod wish of tho accused., Tho rc.tionaJ.c of the rule is thc,t tho net of 2.0.minfotG:;:ing the 02..th opens up the possibility ~-~ thr..t the otatomont W3.S mD,de under pressure and this romows the guc.1'c.ntoo of tho voluntQ.L-·:t cl.:12.ractor of tho statc;ncnt. But section 29 of tho Evidence L.ct qu..7.1 ifics tho,t rule by making suc.i.'1 i:,, stntement n.dmissiblc if it is sbmm that the circumstc.ncos surrounding the j, mo.king of it were not of such e, nature n.s, or were not likoly to 9 ., ~ rosul t in 211 untrue 8.dr,1ission of guil to It should be n.ppc.rent that the converse locds to different results. That is to say under the :provisions of thG section, such a statement would be inc1.dmissible if it is shown tllat the circunstc.ncos surroundi11[,;- the making of it wore of such c.. ne,t1..u:e c.s, or wore lilrnly, to rcsul t in an u11true · adJniss ion of gu-ilt., • • ct fl. 0 0 /5. f • i ... \ ' 1 5 L.drnissibili ty of tho extr0,-judicicl sto.tomont in tho present c:-.so!I / thoroforo, hc"ts to be cori.s.idorod c..s nge1.inst tho rule in Kc,pombo, 1 s case o.s qUc'llifiGd by section 29 of the Evidonco J..ct. Given th::t thG sto.tomont · wv.,s m<1de under co.th, tho :pertinent question to c.sk is, were tho ci:rcurnsta.ncos sv.rrounding tho rocking of it of such· a nature a,s, or lilcoly7 to result il'i ax1 untrue admission of guilt? If the answor is yes then tho stctoment is ino,dmissiblo 5 if it is no then it is ::u:lmissiblo& Tllo appoll2.nt in his unsworn stc.toment of defence clo..imod, in effect, tho.t tl-:.o orlrc.,-judiciol stc,.tomont ha.s its origins in the . involuntary confession whicb. he w;::,s fcrccd by tllo villngers to malco., Ho b.ssortod that it w:.--,s thr,t very involuntc.ry confession which tho villc.gcrs communicdocl to the polico who, in turn, forced him to Q.dopt ' it c.nd to repoc.t it 1)oforo the mngistrc,too Thero wcs 2J11pl0 evidence to support the a,sso1~tc.tion thd he ma.do the confession to his fellow villccg''3rs under tb:rnc,ts. Po Wo 1, for instance, testified thct when tho 0,ppollcJ1t made the conf cssion some of the villo.gors wore· c..rmed o.nd , tllrec,tonine 7 . nnd tho e,ppoll2.l'lt in his dcfonco in court n.dded that tho villo..g0rs tllro2.toncd to kill him if ho did not disclose the killer. Thr.,t cle2.rly introduced c.n clomont of invohu1tc.rinoss in tr..e 2.ppollo,nt I s alleged confession to tho killingo Thore is nothing to show or suggest t!1c-,t tll2.t 0l0racnt of involuntci.riness wns removed so that when subsoq_12.ontly tho a.ppollc.nt cn.11e to mclw the confession to the mcgistr~te he could be s0id to he.,yo done so f:rooly. On tho cont:rc:iJ' the appoll:::nt cldmod thnt he was forced by tho police to do so., Wow1 · who..t c,sstLi'.'(1l1C0 is there thc.t the element of involuntc.rinoss? which foe,turod so prominently o..t the· very 'inception of that confession w:1on mo.do to tho villagers, did not persist until the tir..ic of making t::io 0xtrr:..-judici2.l stc.toment? We could find no such D-Sou:rc..ncoo / 6 ThGn tl10 posi tiol'l is r:1ndo oven moro difficult by the wiministre,tion of the oc..th vri:i.ich sE::rvod to introduce tbo possibility of yet a fuxtho:r olorncnt of involunt2.rinoss in the 2:,ppGllcnt's confession of tho offence to tho mr.gistrc;to. For, it was not shown thr.,t tho 0<1th we,s M.ministo1•od to tho 2.p1-,ollo.nt at his oxp1'ossod wish, 2.11d so tho voluntary .chc..ro,ctor of his stutoment could no longer bo gua,xo.nteod. Not only thc1to Thero w2,s the quostionna.i?o which tl:o rn;:igist::rate hrui to complete bofo1·e recording tho np:pollo..nt' s stateoento Tho designing of that I questionnaire seeks to ensure that an accused 11erson who .is bro1..1.ght before 11 magistro..to for tho recording of an oxtra-judicicl statement, mo.kes his statoment com:Plotoly freely without lJcing influenced by 2.nyono in cny wcy,. Question 4 of the questiormo.h·o, in effect, 2.skod tho 2,:pp01l2.11t if anyone ho..d throatoned, porsv.ndod or induced him to cone to mclw 2. sto,t omont bofore the mo.gistrdo 7 and tho ~:pa.co reserved for his o,nswor is left bl2.l'Jk,.· Ono wonders why. Tho loc..rnod · Principcl Stc..to .t..tto:rncy Sl.¥;gested that it is :possible that the 2..,.viswor wc:,s given but tho r,io,gistro,te, , through in2..dve1•tenee, ol!li ttod to record it. Of cotu•so such oxplMc..tion cc.nnot suffice but 0von if it did the furtho'.r question is, whd wc,s tha.t o..nswer? It _;, c2.11not be assu.mod tho.,t t:10 answer was nccossc.rily noo It might very uoll he.vo boon yes which would find_ support in tho ap:poll8Xlt ts clr:dm thr.t ho we,s forced lJ3r the police to m2ko o, confession before tJ10 mngist:ra.to.. It is oq'Ul'.lly curious th2.t tho spo..co i·osorvod. for tho cnswcr to tl10 concluding question, "Do you W['.llt to mclc0 your statomont? 11 was loft blru1k. This c~uses us considorcblo anxiety ospocio.,lly as those WOj;O tho only two s1Jacos loft blnnk in the whole quostionnaire., \ In his strcnous endouvour to argue in favour of the c..dmissibility of tho st2.too.ont lot:.rnod Principcl ,'3t2..te J~ttornoy contended thr..t, after all, the c,ppollG.nt did not object to tho ·stc..tOi:iont wl1on it w2-S o •, • • e o /7 • p -· -7- put in evidence at tho tricl.. That wo..s indeed n :rolovnnt ci:i.,cumsto..nco, but it sl1ould not be to.ken in isolc..tio,ne Considering it in tho light of tho evidence of th0 whole cc::.se it doos not cJ.lcy tho fears alren.dy oxp:rosscdo In otho3.., words h2.ving rog2.rd to the tot tu i ty, of the ovidonco y ,, thnt circUfilstance alone wv..s not sufficient to domonstrde beyond roasone,blc doubt. tho..t tho c,,pp?llant 's sto.temcnt we,s f:roc and volunto.ry. For, such fr..iluro to chv.llong0 ·n10 2.dr.1issibility of tho sk'.,tomont at tho trial could very well hc::.vo boon 3., more woclrnoss in tho defence which, however, did not 2,bsolve the prosecution f1,or;i their duty to prove beyond a roasonc.blo doubt that the st0-tcmont wc..s free and / volunt2.ry. Ifo.ving given 2,11y..ious · thrn_,1.gl.lt to this 1:mttor, we arc of tho . . view that having regv..rd to tho history of the r,,:p:pollant's confoasion culmin;:-;ti:ng in the mnking of his oxtro.-judicial st2,t0r.1ont to tho justice of tho po;:,,co, we a.re not in a position to' sclJr with confidence tl1c.t tho circumstonccs surrounding the mnking of tho.t confession were unlikely to cause ['.ll untrue o..dn.ission of guilt •. With tha.t viow 9 tl1crofo1~0, it follows that the appellant's oxt:rn-judicicil stateDont WD..S iJ.1n.&~issible in evidence~ So tllc..t vro 8.I'e now loft only with tl10 rooaining two conf ossions whic}:,. the c,ppcllo.nt mo.do to follow vill:::.gors and tho l)olico, respectiv0ly.. J The learned tric:J. judg0 :rightly held thd both confessions were 1 G..dnissiblo., But as 01Jse:rvod co.rlior, tho confession to the villGgei~s we,s clo:::i.rly me.de w1dcr tb.ronts., Thero is no evidence that such throc.t,s or inducement ha.d ceased to operc.to on the o.,ppollMt when ho su1)soq_ucntly mc..do tho co11f0ssion to Sgt., Joseph (P., Wa4); more so r:,s tho confession wv.,s nad.o uhon the a.ppollD.nt :111.d Po W. 4 wore on tb.oir wey be.ck to th0 scene of crime where tho e,ppell2.11t would hc1vo :rc2,son to fcox th2,t his follow villr,gers r,1ig~1t renew tl10ir ct .. 0 0"". /8 -..;- ,-,_ -- ----- --------.. - .,:, ~:r- p ·- , :~· - ~ • . 8 thrc0,ts if he did not stick to w~1e.,t ho k~d tolcl them., :But who.,t is oven 1;101'0 is thisg In both confessions the appollc.nt stc.tod that afteI' cutting the doccc.socl with a po..11go.. he throw the raurder "\'TC2,pon in o. ldrinc pit:; but upon 2., sem-.ch in the lctrine pit tho :pc.ngc, could not bo found. Tl:n.t WG.S ccrt;:..inly c:. relov::::nt r:12.ttor to be considered in dete11,1il1ing tho truthfulness or otllo1·wiso of the confossionso HowcvcI', tl:o trial judge in findir,g that both confessions could not but be true did not consider this r.spect of the evidenced ;:,ll., T6 tho e};.-tont of such oD.ission, ho was clo~ly in erro1·0 ifo think tho.t whore a confession is shown to bo unt:i:'Ue in soao r:in,te1·icl p2.I'ticula.r, thc>,t sl:ould, 2.t lee.st, r2.iso a ror,son2,bl0 doubt, as to tho truthfulness of tho wl1olc conf ossion.. In tho present cc.so tho relevant question to c~sk is, if it is true tho.,t tho c.,ppoll;:;,,.'1.t sl2sshod tho clocoo,sod to clodh, using a _p2;ngo. 7 or.i.d then throw tl10 p2,11._;-c1 in tho lc.trine, why-- ,·ms thd p2.11.g-2- not found? Mr 0 Lyii110, lecrnod P:rincipcl State l:..ttornoy, sulJinittod in effect thQ.t it is possible thd tho son,rch for the mtll'dcr WCi:.:.pon in tho lat1~i:r1.c Wi.'.,S not thorough. ITowovcr, this docs not secc to bo su1)portod by tho ovidoncoo Thero wa,s n.1:iundc.nt evidence tb.0,t l)oth the villc,gers c.no. the police offic0r (P6 Wo4) soc.rcllod for the pn,.ngc, in tho course of w:1ich tl:,o 12,trino pit WC\.S ·broken ·opon but no pang1..1, could ./ 1)o found thoroo Thero wr,s nothing to suggest th<'.t t!10 souch was not 1, ' ,. 'l t .thorough., Thus tho view to bo token on tho evidence is th2..t the,t l)n.I't of tl10 o.p.pollr:nt I s confession relo..ting to throwing of tho mu.rdm.' woa.11on in tho pit 12.trino wns untrue, ,!.11d tl1c,t tb.2.t, being c. rao.torial f i" Cli'CU!:1St['.].1CO :j.n oUl~ view, r2.isos gre,vo doubt 2,s to tho truthfulness of I I ·r tho confession ns e, whole ... 1 'l /,.s pointed. out 02.rl:i..o:r, tho t:riol judge convicted tho cppollo..nt on tl,o strength of tJ-10 confessions which he found to bo truoo •eoo•o/9o In doing l t j .\ ◄ - ·9 so he roli0d o:'l tl10 nuthor ity of Tuwru:i.oi- Ve Ugandn. ( 1967) EoA. 91,. 0 That wc,s ell right in so far 0,s it wentc But the position tho..t ho,s 0:!1orgod now is tb.d ti:10 findj.ng by the tric.1 judge that those confessions could not but bo true is untenu.blc on tho ovidonce, and thc.,t on tho st:rongth of the so.no iuthori t3r of Tuwc,rnoi I s ccso thcro is need for cor:robore,tion before conviction could be had on tl:-.e confessions.. On tho evidence, however, uo 00,11 find no such con,oboro..tion, and.. this wr,s conceded by tho loox-nod Princip0,l / St2,to l:..ttornoy.. It t~:i.oroforo follows that the n.:ppollQJ:1.t' s conviction cennot 'be su.stc.incd. Before concluding this Dc..ttcr we think thc:.t there 8.I'O one or two mr,ttors uhich call· for our observation r-.:.nd comment. When tho lcc.I'ncd tri2.l judge WQ.S consido1~j..ng the issue of tho admissibility of tho confession t3 tho nngistrr.to ho snid, inter dia, 11 I s11cll now .visit tho confession to P.Wo3 tllo Justice of tho Po2.coo 1fail0 I ropon,t my findil'l{s that t;1e o,ccused Lmdo tl10 confession, there hns not boon v..ny suggestion tho..t tho said n2.gistrnto used uno..ccoptablo moc:.11s to record tho stato1;rnnt"~ With due respect to t]10 learned judge this was not .correcto i'..s a.lrco.dy pointed out on.rlior, thG c1ppello.nt's confession to tho r.1c:gistrc.to was shown to hc.vo been raado under oe,th. J3ut cs f n.r \ c.s we QXO 2,wt"..re thoro is no provision in ou:r lo..ws, or proccdui•e sanctioned by prnctic·o, which or.1powcrs a. ran.gistre,te to administer i;,i.1 oc.th or a.ffirm~tion to Cl.rl accused who is brought before him for tho ·rocordi:..1g of ,aJ'l c:::tra-judicic.J. stctoE1ont., Tho stop teken by the n.:;,gistrato in tho present case to swear tho ap::_)0lla..11.t, thorcforc 9 nriountcd to en uno..ccoptablo ,:10r...ns 01· p1~occduro for tho recording of' his· st::..toncnt~ c.,nd the loarnod judge should have f01md so. .Accordingly 1 O<JOOooc/10., :~: e- /· ... 10 it is oEJ.phr,sizGd th2..t consistent-with tho rul~ in K2.p0nb2.fs case, above ci tod, 1i1c.gistr1.1.tos should refrain from ad.rninistoring tho odh in such circunstc1..11ccs oxcept c1t th0 o:x:prossed wish ·et tho ·0ccus0d person, which llu.S not s:10wn to be t:10 case hore., Tho record n.lso shows thc1t tho lec.rnod t:ri2,l judge after s0locting tho assessors proceeded to s1mar tl10m. Onco agc::.in wo ro. .o not nwc:.re of tho authority. for such procedure. Ls far as we e,ro c.WCJ'.'Oy tho procodu,--:-o c,s sr..nctionod by tho pr2,ctico of our courts is t.c.t c.fto:r tho, soloction of assessors tho judge proceeds to 0}.1Jl2,in thoi:r rolG to thoD c.ftor wl1ich they begin to ho.sr tho cc,se., .l.ccm•dingly the attention is drctm, of those who preside ovor trioJ.s :.-:';:.t with assessors, to tho dosir2.l1ility of adhering to tho known_ \ procodUJ.'G in tlio matter .. In· conclusion~ this c.pped succeeds, fo1. . tho re2.sons wo h2,vo \ \ ondoo.,vourod to give. ·Tho conviction is qU2-shod cl1d tho s0ntencc sot J aside. The 0,ppcll0,_11t is to bo role11sod from prison foi-thwi th unless ho is ot}1orwise l-2.•wfully holdj ry)t' so ordered., lJl'l:Ell ~t MW1.JlZ1. this t;f"vlday of ~ 8 . (L. M.. MlJUJ:IE) JUSTICE OF APP;Jk';L l: r,11("""- - .......