19890408 TZHC Dar es Salaam3

.w UNJ:TE£ .... RE_f"u:3,LI,9., _qr_~~l ., :~...,-..~ ;, . :~ . ·. , . -~ TZi~ITlA . J1'I2PELL/:. TE JUP~SDICTIOH HIGH COUR~ CRI!UlJJ4L J4l?PEJ~L no.~o/88 ORIGINl.L CRIIfilU.L CJ~SE HO,;O OF 1987 . OF THE DISTP..:CQ1' COVRT OF UTET~ D:C3TRICT ~~i.W1!'":J4;f. Bo1"0.s,o-1. J-.• ti._ Y~l ~S.S. ~ ~ o t r a t_e - ~ ~ ♦ I _t • ' • I f _t-- •· -:t • f i~PPELLL.NT _ · ·- ·-{ Ovigi:aa1 Jv;,ouood) P:iUO. ~ uu:r.m ..R.EPU5LJ:..C • • • • ·• • • • • RZSPOHDEN'I' ~~0 ~ f.r~~or-f .... - .... .... ·•-v· . ii ln ~ Distric,t Oour-t o.Z R~.:tf- a~l.an.t ,ss ~~ ~d.th RePW•ointing to have tl1.o po,·10~.r. o~ wi tchcrart, c o ~ to .:,e..etio~ i (t) and , (~) of thG W~toh~~f':f;..~e,. Capt .1 a, - lie wns c~:o.victed on a purportoct p1ea o-£ g1,1i.ity and. senJcen4,,__. to thr~o ~aro impriop111-:1ent.-- 'r"t3'-s appe€11 is agej.nst both CQ$.v:tation and ,:;entGncc. Sft;ttipn ;} ( 1) p.f ·the ~Ti tchora.i't Or~tntmce und0r which appellaftll Wap convic1od $ayos '-'•~ ~y p~rs on wl?,o • (i) by ~ stat-er:1ei1.ts or actions ;,,.. eprosents 'i hims elf to hav~ the po1-1er o~ ,-Ti tchcr~ft I oha:.LJ. be guilty of' an off one~ against th:l,.a Pr<'.Unance" Aft;e,r- tl ae oharg0 · wat> read oval'" and ejtplainoda appellant · .,s r.c.ool ;-deel to hJ p.ve replj.od "it i::. truo 11 ~oh tl).e 1,e~ed :tr:f.el DiLntJ;ict l".tagisJaj:'nte 0nt0red ao a plea of . ·<t,rb.i.oh he I d:1,d b7 1 saying W ' . guilty• · Th~

F«i'blic P:rosocu·tor m:.o jnYited tQ give fee.ta ' 11 B, Btw~et; • 1 Jth and 14th Jun~, 1986 a ~port was:. .t'i ~ca:l.y, Qd from Nyar.nmgc - village wi th4l, Ruf'iji ' . Di.atri.o-t that.. tb..ere were. peop,le in vill,e.~_e being in the procesa_of practioing witchorai't and on that report pol:i.oemen were dispatched to tha_ t Vil.lag& wher-e they met the aooused ·and his gang.having a basket :Ln wi':.ioh were variouo typeo of herbs and witohcre.:?t aquip~1antGa 21 bottles of local medicine and hence were arre~ted and charged with thio o~fence•. And in reply to thioa appell.ant aaid - -Facts as adduced by the prosecution are oorreot 0 • The learned State Atton,.ey who appeared in this appeal f'or. th.e Repub1io declined to oupport tho oony.f.o:tion. He gave 'fn',10 reaD-Ons for thia, First ne io of the opinion that the pu,..,.""?(W~ p1ea of guilty is not unequivocal. And secondly acoo:rding to the proviso to section 5 of the Witohoi'"ai't Ordinance no trial under the Ordi.n~ce is to be oonduoted unless the consent of' the ..Attoni,ey Genei-a.l has :first been obtained. In this case the ~o~sent which is on reoord is that of the Director of Public- . Prooeoutions. W:tth reopGct I fully assooiate myself' with tho.t1e 0Qae~Ot13 •. StartJ.ng ~tith the Fur.I?orted plea of guilty it is clear that thG £acts aa narrat0d by the Public Prosecutor do not.; aupport the o.:ff'ence with

wh:i.oh appel;tant is cha1...ge.d. 1'1owhere. ;in these facts ia :tt a1leg0d that _appellant• either by atat·e- rnents or by conducts, reprGsented himself' to have the power of. -i,:f.tchcra:rt. What is a.ppa:.... <mt from the fao·ts io that a:ppel1ant "vtaa · found in possession ot~ an asoo,rtment of articles alleged to be o:f witchcraft, i,:iotr.~ments, May be those f'aoto would-have. been ou.:f:f'ioient to suppo1....t a charge ·of being in po~oess:ion ·ot' i.nstrument of witohorai't oontrery td aeotion 3 (ii) ~f' the Ordinance• The purpol1tc~ plo{l o~ gti:ll ty is rendered eve1-i ntQt-e. I questionable by the appell~nt 'o: general replies both to the charge. and the :faots. From theo0 .:replies it is hard ~or. th:i.a court to satisfy itsolt" the.t appc.llant fully und~rstood _t.he nature and ingredient::i of' th0 of:td..7.oJ to which h·e is purpor.ted to have pleaded guilty. 'Jllu::; in .B.'..Y. J.'.9nasani Ega}.,t¼ (1942) 9 EACA 65 at p 67 the Court o:t AppcJa.t :for Eastorn ,.African SE\id - "In any eaa e L"l -whioh a oonv:t.otjL on is likely to prooe~d on a plea o-£ guilty, ·i1~ is most deai:r.-abla not only that every co:nstitu~:.n1; 0£ the charge should be· e,::plainod to the aQ<ltt:,s ed but that he . should be required t<> v.dmi t ·o1.•1 ', deny every o.osis ti fuont and that what h0 nayo chould bG reoorded in a :fol."'Dl which will satisfy an appeal oourt that he

:fully understood the oha~ge and pleadad guilty to eveey o:t it unequivoca.11Y"• And as regards to tee oceonQ observation• the provioion of seotion 5 is quite olear. Ti~c requisite oonsent io that of the Attorney Gcnera1 and not of the Director of Publio Prooeou• tion.$. I thizilc this io one o~ the aspects or the oraine.noe ' ·wi~ich needs re:f'orm. The gene.1... cl understanding is that p1.,.ior 0011.Dent 0£ tho _Attorney General is r9quired for the proooout~on o~ polit.:toal. o~ qua.s.~-;pol.i -l:d.oc..l o:f:f'en-ees, In any oaae tald.ng into consideration the nature' of the ot:.t'enoes relat~d to the .Provisions of the ordinance, it can.not bo rati,onali~ed why , p r o c e ~ ~qui~a_ an:,. consent, let alone that of: thG Ai;tox:ney <kul.Gi:al • With these obser.vationst this appeal must ~uoeeed. A c.on.w.ort:LO!l. :lD quasl-ied and GGnwn.oe ,oet asidGt'

AT DAR ES SALUM 8/4/1989