Criminal Appeal No

r r 5H.3 COU/IT 0 ? 0? IA ZA^C' a t n a ir a . s a m L jw m u .qdL^ j a t e . j.a . ^ p , , , . CHEIHIAL APrJ.L NOS. 44 ft 45 c." 1535 3EL.Wv;HT ®E DIRECTOR OS’ PUBLIC PROSj-JCUTIOHS . .................................... a p p e l l a n t A1W 1. ALLY HAJI AHII3D j 2« YONa KAPOaZ). J. g02L2ES| • • . . . . ................ ETCP0KD5WIS (Appeal from HieR u l i n j o f fee High Court o f (K^ n Sa , J . J d3ted th2 2 1h» 21st ^ 3J.st days o f December, 19G4 ill -‘tpfcj * Orse No. 1 and ; c ,> i q ^ JUDK'LJ'iT 0? Z~}' QQ7RT MAKAME. J .A . i * - • > W e a l3 . o r . con cclidatod f t r hc!=ria, . ^ 0J, ^ * T r r “ ed f e0t° r ° f * “ >=> * * » * < > * • . decisio n s o f * * H lgl, <:<>" r t > < » « * » , » • ) , H. b . i l b, the ^ Z Z ° rV l+ r ; a8eS PG' in S t ^ aJ undcr 'aie :3°on caic ~ad Oiganised ^ a’ s ••». » »r. * _ * , 44 o t l f c ; : : 3 " e ", ‘,t0rns3'* 5he r ) 8 ^ a c s t ir. O r liiia a l Appeal No. « M ^ p r e s e n t e d 6jrH p. ^ “ “r“ a“ 1 * • * « * « <* M r . represented '" “ ' f ’ ^ “ *> “ *• - W u n c e , ^ advocates* 5Jie various respondents su ccessfu lly aad,- b a il , P, , l i CaVionfi J “ «;« H i * oo„rt Ju l;. ,„d ap!lella„.t w a K , l3lled °U “ * * • Ih ' re “ only erourca o f op-ioal to th is nam ely:- , ^ > " 2 f naS, ttl’e Ho ^ b l e Judge s a t , l o n ; r/ifeout two la y nembersi eg* inquired by the law tho court 7/as . n ot p rop erljr*con s-titu ted ". N , B^xore us H r. %enbs put up strenuous ci^u n cn ts. He subsetted - c c o r r ^ t ly , -(hat tinder S ectio n 3 o f the Economic and 0-^ ^ ^ C n 'w j ontrol l o t , the Jurisdiction to hesr and detemlnc ceses invol«ne eoonomc o « „ c e s -under this Act is vested in #,<, .Cour, „ke„ - i t s ns 'Ti Ueononiio Crli-ios Co-j~+ thB * 4, p ^ i Z ! - * 1" ° r ,1 ,lo h 13 - * ~ * " » > . Econ^io Orim* Court shull c0 * * 8* - °°“rt - * » *7 « * . . . ' * * " 01 ~~r * ^seabi- submitted th^+ k J * *° « « alone Ind f 7 ° ^ ’ “ ^ llle ^ to -L o rfity th is by d . a p p lic a tio n s . He sought. ttSntl0n t0 S eC ti- 16 which p ro v id e s s - o ^ n S b e S ^ . M 6 <!eCided b* agreement o t Z ^ J j o Z ^ ■ « « £ £ s z r c T r " " i o “ b a f n e e e s M * . * « * . 0 £ : J Z L ~ ? * A e t “ r e , e r a * • t Nnjou, t=m - > *“ * « ■ • » - » fe„ instances, pictaj S>afc c o n c ^ d “ " « » > were ^ u s h t to his attention, * • » ° . i « r o it „ t oaM,ot h° u i>- v.c n.ui confess*, to d iffic u lt i^ ” “ bl4" 0UalJ “ « » » « ! * css“ ‘ " *•* * • «? » 29 ( 4 ) M Se\ “ a r o s u it - He — «cr r e v e rt, should be read tn-r +v, ° 10n 35> t0 whicl1 we s h a ll a p p lio . tio n c , a t any stage 36 er> * * * r e 3 u lt 1 h a t ba* l C° U rt ' * to a judge o t the High o 0 T * C~ triec'. to bu ttress h i , * • a lo n e* He l a s t l y ■ d5dCiSl0nS " ,nn0t ^ ^ JUdSe,G under s e c tio n 29 ( 4 ) and S e ction „ aP P l ^ ^ i o n s were b r o ^ t * * • ^ t ^ r c 8 0 " : o f ^ * • * . ^ ; r : 0r » v — t e i1 ’ * : r : " r 1 ™ : t : r ? - b<> Pr° Vla’ d « * « two'different «“ » 41 ■ » * . I * . a 3 J . „ ! I ' 1 “ « * “ 5“ *“ » 35. Ho submitted ■ * » « . , o t aM a a ; ^ a l “ s “ n s™ 1 c u r^ b la , Hc f u r lh e r subm itted ifaat bain ' 6 rr° r “ suoli an exercise d P ^ P W ly Canted because * s“ i » « — - « - « - t r i n c r s r fc° hea^ aM *• 3 •• "'i: hr.ve beon gre-: t l y .'’sainted by u s e fu l .-irgunents by both loom ed cnunoel. II? v in e said so however, we wish to reniTl: £ t the ou tset that, on our p a rt, we are c le a r in our rjinds that i f -there is any ambiguity in the •••‘c t , i t is not with, regard to the intendment o f the term "High C ourt". We think that 'High Court' means 'High Court' as i t means in the C o n s titu tio n and th at i t becomes an Economic Crimes Court only when i t ho.-re and determines cases in v o lv in g economic offen ces* 3hat i t becoues the Court under the A ct and w hatever e ls e i t does, such a s .to gr.'n t b o i l under se ctio n 35, i t is c le a r ly r e fe r r e d to as the Court. We wish b r i e f l y to lo o k a t the r e le v a n t parts $:fyth.e scheme o f the A c t . When a person is brought b e fo re a D i s t r i c t Court, in persuance o f s e c tio n 29 the charge is read over and explained to him.' A t that stage he is n ot required... to plead, o r make a^jreply. Ht; is t o ld , in accordance w ith su b-section f ( 3 ) : - u3his is n ot your t r i a l . I f i t is so decided, you w i l l be trie d l a t e r in.| .the High Cour t S it t in g as an Economic Crimes Court Immediately a f t e r t^this, the m agistra te must ex p la in to him, in terms o f su b-section ( 4 ) , h.is r ig h t to p e t it io n the Hirti Court fo r b a il pending Uie d e c is io n whether o r n ot he w i l l be put on t r i a l . 1 I I t should be noted h e re , and we think th is is not w ithou t s ig n ific a n c e , th.it tlu: accusedp e rso n fis n ot told o f h is r ig h t to go to the court r e fe r r e d to in ihe su b -section immediately proceeding, th at is the High Court s i t t in g as an Economic Crimes Court, o r to the Economic Ciimes Court, o r even sim ply to W e court (as d e fin e d ). He is told to go to the -iigh Court, in tiiese in s ta n t cases the accused persons found Mtenga, J ,, o f the High Oourtj vAiere Mtenga, J . does no £ s i t , .nd is not required 1 ) co s i t , w ith \ay members* We fin d nod i f f i c u l t y , noam biguity, no co n tra d ic tio n , in th is cleelr p ro v is io n by the L e g is la tu r e . In hearing ouch an a p p lic a tio n a High iCourt judge does n ot in fr in g e the law and * i trcppass the province o f the Economic Crimes C ouft, h e r e a fte r r e fe r r e d to ac tiie Court, 3he co u rt has ta hear and' determine a case p rop erly b e fo re i t , which a t th is sta ge i t is n o t. "At th is stage the D ir e c to r o f Public Prosecutions has n ot y e t f i l e d an inform ation, and hp may d ecid e not t o . I t is only a f t e r he f i l e s an inform ation and a copy o f the inform ation and o f the N o tic e o f t r i a l i s sen t to the D i s t r i c t Coufift by the R e g is tra r o f the High C o ir t, that the accused i s . committed fo r t r i a l by 1he C ourt. Suchoi person now b e fo re the court, may begranted. ----------- I b a i l by the Court, on . its. own motion o r upon the accused's a p p lic a tio n , under s e c tio n 35. ' **/4 ■ . WS h3V0 Sa±d’ W0 ^ 110 doubt in th is in te r p r e ta tio n 0 ” th . u o en tx o n o f the L e g is la tu r e -nd -i - ^ t i o n o, the ■"at’ o 'r 'le , m" y S0? W° * o t ite ^ . I t Z Z T * a onr l y S se o0 rt ti s° *” out S Js toeJ < 4 ) S t f ° w ou “ u^ *te s t —tt0 ^ ~ 0t + n, -n ~ • .1 “ * r r !5* * « " - — J"L nc<ve been ' in f orn * ^ L ° l ° £ ^ T 3nd— d P— - H I now be soction ^ ‘ ^ emphaticall y U iat the flo w o f fe e K ^ Z ' c I otT * ° £ 8VCti<>n 35 i t e 6 l f ’ d° n0t acoonooclate Mr. - ii,* - + a sse r tio n fe a t even under s e c tio n 35 a judge o f the J i ^ourt aay g ra n t b a il, tte a re s a t is fie d fe a t a - * , t + ^ Tn +v,„ * ^ ^ - * - - J L,l'uut-l0 — j: *ie«3 ^ power; “ te” ‘ t o ' t 1» » - 3UJSO purported to a o t unOer lit? c S ection 35 he <*»le I s -v rOly---------- erred J. -d ^ xttedly section 16 provides that a l l nuestion- tn h a -h f fee cou-rt j. .ucsxiono to bo decided - \ ncluding the d ecision whether i t fin d - -Mi*, n ^ g u i l t y ) . h a i l be decided by agreement o f 1h • Per80Q ' * - " o u r : her- « ° m a jo rity o f fe e members. o r , : : t , ^ ^ * . ^ on„ b , ' 3UdSS 3nd too l a y members. A t f i r s t glan ce oa. b . tempted to argue from th is , as indeed y r To * • d id . fe a t } -,-n . *“r » Teembc: s p i r i t e d l y * v x x ' S r T * t o ° ’ a n y ’ * ■ * • > - * * — = s u p c r llc la l r e a d ’ 7 V,1h r “ P3Ct’ * * * « “ “ b» « » « « « of .'hich ,.ust be d e a l ^ ' l T h ^ ° f * e Prov“ i » n - a . questions . « not a i l ? t t ° ’X m m U ° r " “ ° ° U rt to tut n « , „ a i! q u e 3 t l o n e “ " * * * “ “ *“ * " si>elt « * « section cxci 0 ,0 ’ uiic^ u such, an Gxepoi^^* rin^ * le 3 “ ea v-.^+ 3uies -« - » >“ - rt - boa , ~ j , clid not in volve 'fchs liesrin^' " determ ination of case- nnd IT. r , ■ n e _ m i0 7» re o f f e . ~A - ’ ^“wakingwe made the same submissions* V il , U c! ■ ° P“ 10" * * ’ “ » > »« ,o a „ n ° , z j z 3 5 o n i r b “ a u s ° * * * ■ ” « “ « - * » on lv a Hirh G” ^ l'1‘jf le d that a t 1316 s e°±ion 29 ( 4 ) s fe g e “ G° Urt ^udS ^ f i t t i n g alone, has powers to h e - ban a 1 • +- "m t r:n t b a il. Mton,^ t +>> " applications ju r i'.u ic t io n , ’ “ « ^ ...... 4 2 a ' ” 41 “r- 10 A S . * , M Mr. " lm - to « ' » * “ 6 ^ c« ^ ^ « „ » » * ban T ^) J nd ; 35, r some o f under t h e section 35 w alone. 3 p p u c a , l o n s w r M t o “ - « - Jia -ir-vcc arc. cuix.blo -:u 'did not occasion a misc T r i a g e o f If tu° b j i l condition9 in tho a p p lic a tio n s g iv in g n .j to W presen t appeals ay9 s t i f f , the learned D ire c to r o f Public J r o ^ c t io n c can h a id ly conP} ^ . in a n y event, actin g under se c tio n 25. ( 4 ) , there i s nothin.; to prevent a High Court Judge, in h is d isc rc tio C , f conditions akin to those s p e lt out in section 35. In exwrcisUig h is d is c r e t io n , to judge w i l l o f « g ? ^ t E ke ln to account the p r in c ip le o f e q u a lity b e fo re the law , enibodied under the c on stitu tion , by i m p o s t b a i l conditions vfaich do not d i f f e r too m ch from those a i'r lie d by the court under se c tio n 35. In the event we dism iss the app eals, D.VZD a t MBEXA th is 10th day o f July, 1985. P .I. m L A L I _CHIEF •JUSTTm? ■■ 1 L .M . IiIAICAMB - JUSTICE. OF APPEAR a.m .... omar JUSTICE O'? APPEAL 3 . P . MOSHI I c e r t i f y that this^icT a e copy o f the o r ig in a l (B . / P . MOSHI) SHTIOR DEPU S£_BEG ■IS'TRAR