19750226 TZCA Dar es Salaam

L/tr- Il\T THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

AT DAR ES SALAAM

APPELLATE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 186 OF 1974 ORIGINAL CRI:t,ITNAL CASE HO. K 1185 OF 1973 1 OF IJ. HE DISTRICT COURT OF KINOJ\l"DONI DAR BS SPJJLAII DISTRIC'.11 Before P .N. M.OKONK\-JO Esq. . . . . Senior. Resident J\·Iagj_strato B. 4429 D/C GODFREY 1.AISER . . . . . . . . • • .APFELIJi.1'7T versus THE RBPU13LIC • • • • • • • • • IlE'.JPOHDEHT I\TY.ALALI, AG. Judge - The appellant in this case namely 011e Ho. B4429 Detective Constable Godfre;sr Laiser 1 was charged crnd convicted on two counts with Corrupt Transaction uith agent c/s 3(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1971 and was sentenced to 3 vears irn.rJrisonment on each count and sentences were ordered to ru.n c-oncurrently. He was jointly charged with another person who was fo1.:md to bave no case to answer and was acquitted under section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This appeal. is against conviction and senteEce on each count. 'I1he undisputed facts in this case are as follm·:s. Tb.e appellant at all material times wa:s employed in the Tanzania Police li'oroe as a detective Police constable and was attached to Msimbazj_ Police Sta ti on. Sometime in June 1973, The f:~rst Prosecution Witness (P. \.' .1) mmiely one H.!~JI K.AfJSIM 1 who was a resident of Arusha tm;rn had his motor vehicle stolen. His search for his stolen motor vehicle took him to Morogoro Region. One day while P.F.l was

in the oompany of the Sevooth Witness for the Prosecution (P.V.7) namely one YUSUF S. GOTHEY, at Chalize, he .smv a motor vehicle paso wJ--ich was similar to his stolen motor vehicle. P. "\'7 .1 took P. W.7 's motor vehicle and gave chase but discovered that the motor vehicle was not his. Apparently the police were informed of this cbase. Thinking t:t1at the cbase was an attempt to seize and steal the other motor vehicle, the Police began to look for P.1ii.7's motor vehicle 1 the particulars of which had been given to the police. Later that month P.W.7 motor vehicle was traced by the police at P.W.7's medical store in Dar es Sa1a~'m and warJ taken 2J'.rl kept in Police Custod:7 at Msimbazi Police Station. P. t. 7 rang u:rj P. W.·1 in .Arusb a to inform him of the developments fand requested him to come to Dar es Salaam 2.nd report at riTsirnbazi Police Station. P.W.l did so and he met I . - 2 - appellant nnd the othor accused. P.k.l was informed that he was SUfjpected of attenpting to steal a motor vd:.icle. P .11.1 made his statment to the police. Th0re was sor<10 diff'i- cul ty about getting surety for J? .1:l. l to bo rel0ased on riolicc bail •. Appollant and t.he other policeman accoID1x,mic:d P. 1:i .1 to Zaire I~otel 9 thence back to r.rrsimbazi }olic c Station where p'.V.l uas released on bail. Later th::'.t day at about 8.00 p.m. the appollant again mot F·. W.1 near

Hsimbazi Police Station 1'Thilo in the bonpany of (P.V.l), the second Prosecution Wi tnesc, n2,mely Detective Inspector J 02,ckim Lyimo, the Fourth Prosecution witness (P.H.4) mmoly Fo. L 7200 Detective Constable r-Isuya Aliabu, e,nd the Fifth Prosecution Uitness (P.F.5) nr:~mely Sub-Inspoctor Sicbone Aclimiun appeared and P .1:l. 2 arrested appellant, 1-:rho was told by P. li. 2 to pick up some money from the ground below him but he rcfu- .sed·.. Appellant together with tbe r:lonoy were taken to l''Isi- mbazi Police Sta ti on, thence to Central J?olico Station where appellant was charged. The prosecution case at the trial was that after ::--.r.1 had ma,dc his statement at Msimbazi Police Sta ti on mmelle"nt solicitod a bribe of shs. 1, 200/- from P. t .1 so tl12, F appellant could settle P. 1;;. l's case. Lppello.nt accomponiod I,v'.l to Zaire Hotel and to other places in an 2,pparont attempt by P. t .1 to raise the required mono;y. Vhilc so do ins, r.W.l rang up Regional C.I.D. office. A police trap was arranged undor which P,1:.1 was given 1,020/- i.1olico money to give to appellant later tl1at evening at 1::1 pl2,co where l)Olice detectives would be waiting in hiding ready to pounce upon appellant on an agreed si1:.~al l:: ei11G 5 iven by P.W.l. 1 '1:he agreed sign2.l was to be the lighti.,v1g of a cigarette by P.vi.l 2sfter h2nding over the money to appellant. Appellant in

his defence asserted th2. t he ti.ad accompanied PJ:i.l to t2iro Eotel only so that r.-w.1 could colloct hio belongings froF1 the Hotel. P.t.l 11as released on I'olicc bail and told to report at police station the followiri-e day. P.W.l howevor returned the same ovoni:he to.~infor1:1 appellant that as ho had a return ai:r ticket to .t!..r.usJ~a, he had to 0 o to the~ Air port to cancel his journey. It was under those circumstances that the polico detectives appeared and arTcstod him. Tho loarnod Resident I'Je,c;istratc reviewed the evidence and accepted thE: ovidonce of P.vl.l, P.F.2, I.W.4, and P.W.5 and rejected appellant's 01,m vorsion of events. In his petition of appeal, ap1-::cllant subnit s tb2 t the failui-·c by tho police to record tLc transfer of police monoy from tb.c Regional Crime officer to P. W. 2 and. to smear the money '{ith a substance used for finger print pur- poses u_ndermined tho prosecution case. I do not th ink tba t this irreg~1lari ty is mat orial in this case since I c 2 nnot see any reason why s,11 the polj_ce officers involve:d in the preparation of tho trap, sone of whom were senior in rank to appellant, should be tolling lies against a colleague who happo1s to l-e very junior in rank 2nd whose destruction would tbereforc not create a promotional. vacancy for someone. - 3 - Appellant· also points out a discrepancy bet1,reen the nurnbers of a

currencv note as r0corded bv the c1otcctive police before the money was allegedly ha~1cled over to appellant and the actual n"LuJber as found out in court. The police record showed a. No. E 39464 whereas the a ctueJ. currency note had a No. 394624 •. The discrepancy is very minor which appears tc have happened tlu."01.,:gh an accidental OlTri ssion of the figure n 2n in the record made by the police. Appellant points out some inconsistencies or contradiction between some of the prosecutj_on witnesses regarding some details concerning distances at the place where appellant ·was a lYDrehended. In view of the facts which were not in dispute at tho trial, these minor contradictions and inconsistencies are of no consequence. There are other points which appellant raises in his petition but they make no difference to the outcome of this appeal as the evidence for the prosecution was overwhelming. The sentence of 3 years imprisonment on each count is tho mininum prescribed by lav. Appeal is dj_smisscd in its entirety. Delivered in Court at Dar es Salaam, th.is 26th day of February 1975 ,'1,t- r 71\/rit✓. F • L (I NYALALI ACJ. JU1)G :C 26/2/1975