ZUBERI NGALE JUMA MTONDOO 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA THE CORRUPTION AND ECONOMIC CRIMES DIVISION AT ARUSHA SUB-REGISTRY ECONOMIC APPLICATION NO. 6490 OF 2025 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS ……….…………………. APPLICANT VERSUS ZUBERI NGALE JUMA MTONDOO ……………………..………….. 1ST RESPONDENT ABDUL SEIF SALIM ALGERY ……………………………………….. 2ND RESPONDENT SEIF ABDALLAH JUMA NABAHANI ………………………………. 3RD RESPONDENT JUMAA ATHUMANI MOHAMED KOYO ………………….………… 4TH RESPONDENT JUMA SWALEHE SALIM …………………………………….……….. 5TH RESPONDENT WALLY AMAN MWALIMU ………………………………….……….. 6TH RESPONDENT SAID ABDALLAH NCHIMWENDA ………………………….………. 7TH RESPONDENT JALUU ISMAIL ABDUKADIR …………………………………..….. 8TH RESPONDENT YUSUPH DOMISHENI TAMBALA@ERICK …………………………9TH RESPONDENT (Arising from Economic Case No. 24 of 2023 of the Resident Magistrate’s Court of Arusha at Arusha) RULING 21st and 24th March 2025 KISANYA, J.: This ex-parte application is made under section 34(3) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, No. 21 of 2002 and section 188(1) and (2) of the Criminal 1 Procedure Act [Cap. 20 R.E. 2022]. The Director of Public Prosecutions (the applicant) seeks various protective measures for witnesses intending to testify in the criminal proceedings arising from Economic Case No. 24 of 2023, which is currently before the Resident Magistrates' Court of Arusha at Arusha. The specific orders sought are to the following effect: 1. That the witnesses be allowed to testify through video conference. 2. That the identity and whereabouts of the witnesses remain undisclosed for security purposes during both the committal and trial proceedings. 3. That statements and documents likely to disclose the identity of the witnesses be kept confidential during both committal and trial proceedings. 4. That the trial and proceedings be conducted in camera. 5. Any other protective measures the Court considers necessary to ensure the safety and security of the witnesses. The application is supported by the affidavits of James Pallangyo, Senior State Attorney from the National Prosecutions Service, and SP Boni Mbange Mgogo, Acting Regional Crimes Officer of Arusha Region. The affidavits depose that these witnesses are under threat from an organized criminal 2 syndicate associated with the respondents. As a result, the witnesses are in fear for their lives, given their critical role in the prosecution's case. In the course of the ex-parte hearing, Mr. James Pallangyo, the learned Senior State Attorney, appeared for the applicant. Submitting in support of the application, Mr. Pallangyo adopted the contents of the supporting affidavits. He submitted that the prosecution intends to file information before this Court regarding Economic Case No. 24 of 2023, which is currently at the committal stage before the Resident Magistrate’s Court of Arusha. The respondents in this case face multiple charges under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (supra). Mr. Pallangyo contended that compliance with the legal requirement to disclose witness statements and prosecution documents would pose a significant threat to the safety and well-being of the witnesses and their families. He submitted that investigations had revealed ongoing efforts by the respondents’ accomplices, who remain at large, to identify and intimidate prosecution witnesses to prevent them from testifying. In light of these threats, Mr. Pallangyo urged this Court to grant the application and approve the protective measures sought in the chamber 3 summons. To reinforce his argument, he cited the case of DPP vs. Yusuph Ally Huta and 5 Others, Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 26 of 2022, HCT at Arusha (unreported), where similar witness protection measures were granted. He further relied on international legal instruments, including Article 64(7) of the Rome Statute and the Protocol to Combat Trafficking, Commercial Exploitation, and Sexual Abuse of Women and Children in South Asia, both of which recognize the necessity of witness protection in cases involving serious criminal offenses. Having examined the application, supporting affidavits, and oral submissions, the main question to be resolved is whether the application is meritorious. As a preliminary point, section 34(3) of the Prevention Terrorism Act and section 188(1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act (supra), both cited in the chamber summons, empower this Court, upon an ex-parte application by the Director of Public Prosecutions, to issue orders aimed at protecting witnesses. Under section 188(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Court may grant protective measures, including allowing witness testimony to be given via video conferencing in accordance with the Evidence Act [Cap 6, R.E. 4 2022], ordering non-disclosure or restriction of a witness’s identity and whereabouts for security reasons, preventing the disclosure of statements or documents that could reveal the witness’s identity, and issuing any other protective measures deemed necessary by the Court. Moreover, section 188(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulates that once such orders are granted, the relevant witness statements or documents shall not be disclosed to the accused during committal or trial proceedings. As highlighted in DPP vs. Mohamed Hassan Ugando and Others, Misc. Criminal Application No. 27 of 2021, HCT at DSM (unreported), these provisions are designed to ensure that judicial proceedings continue without undue interference while safeguarding witnesses from threats that could obstruct the course of justice. Therefore, in determining the merit of this application, the Court must evaluate whether the safety of the intended witnesses would be at serious risk if their identities were disclosed. In the instant matter, it is stated that the respondents and other persons still at large were part of a terrorist syndicate. It is further asserted that the intelligence gathered during the investigation suggests that the respondents, in coordination with their accomplices, have been making efforts to uncover the identities of prosecution witnesses with the intention of 5 preventing them from testifying. Given these circumstances, I concur with Mr. Pallangyo that the security and well-being of the intended witnesses and their families would be at significant risk if their identities were disclosed during the committal and trial proceedings. It follows, therefore, that the protective measures sought in the chamber summons are both justified and necessary to uphold the integrity of the proceedings while ensuring the security of the witnesses. That said and done, I find this application to be meritorious and grant it. Accordingly, and in line with section 188 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the following orders are made by this Court: 1. That, where necessary, some witnesses' testimony be given through video conferencing. 2. That the identity and location of the witnesses be kept undisclosed throughout the committal and trial proceedings, until it is confirmed that there is no further threat to their safety. 3. That any information in the documents, witness statements or testimony that could potentially reveal the identity or location of the witnesses be kept undisclosed. 6 4. That the trial proceedings in which these witnesses are involved be conducted in camera. 5. That the provisions related to committal proceedings under sections 30 of the EOCCA and rule 8 of GN No. 267 of 2016 be adhered to, while ensuring that the identities of the witnesses remain undisclosed as directed in this order. It is so ordered. DATED at ARUSHA this 24th day of March, 2025. S.E. KISANYA JUDGE Delivered virtually this 24th day of March, 2025, in the presence of Ms. Verediana Mlenzi, learned Senior State Attorney for the Applicant and Ms. Angel Abasy, RMA, and in the absence of the respondents. S.E. KISANYA JUDGE 24/03/2025 7