nicolaus kiwoweli another vs republic 1987 tzca 68 4 may 1987

IE TH3 COURT OF .L^Y.2 *,L OF TANZANIA *rn ?-.-• j. * X •' -rr-~ ••• j. j tv . ~J COR;Jfl : MUST m _ AG. C . ,J . S M:. IC A O , J . A . A?TP OF 1 R , J, . C R in irn r:o. 24 o f 1 9 8 6 1, n i c o l : . u -3 k i : yr i l : z, s d o t a l o y s ................ • ^ I -Uji T 3 Versus TH3 R1SPU3LIC ............. .................. .. RTISPOID’C T (Appeal from the c o n v i c t io n and se n t­ ence o f The High Court o f Tanzania at I r in g a ) ( J . - . Mrasso, J . ) dated 7th A p r il , 1936 in Crim inal S ession s Case Na, 63 o f 1982 jiD s n tji: t OF T E COURT The two a p p e lla n ts 1TICOL..U-3 ICX70V3L'* and ^D7IF IICL./A were sentenced to dea1*h by the High Court s i t t i n g at I r in g a , (M roso, J ) , f o l l o w i n g t h e i r c o n v i c t io n f o r the murder o f a man c a l l e d TEQBIAS KSEO/*, a purchasing c le r k f o r the Tanganyika Pyre thrum Board, s t a t io n e d at Magoda in Njombe D i s t r i c t . In the appeal b e fo r e us the f i r s t a p p e lla n t was rep resen ted by I r . Lwakasungula w hile the second a p p e lla n t was rep resen ted by ¥ r . Kwakingwe. Mr. Mwakasungula agreed to r e p r e se n t the f i r s t a -p o lla n t at very sh ort n o t i c e and we wish to exp ress our a p p r e c ia t io n f o r Mr. Mwakasungula*s valour^ ~r. Kapinga, learned State A ttorn ey , appeared f o r the respondent Re’ou bli c . The s o l e b a s is f o r the a p p e l la n t s ’ c o n v i c t io n was an e x t r a ­ j u d i c i a l statement the second a p - o l l a n t , Ulelwa, made to a J u s t ic e o f the P e a ce , P./I3 AMBGR LU"OV'CrC. This e x t r a - j u d i c i a l statement was r e t r a c t e d , and Mr, Kwakingwe7s nain. com plaint i s that i $ should notl have been r e l i e d upon t o found the c o n v i c t io n s because i t was n o t r e a l l y c o r r o b o r a te d by o th e r independent e v id e n c e . Mr, Mwaka- su ngu la’ s subm ission was t h a t , in any e v e n t, h i s c l i e n t should not have been c o n v ic t e d , in view o f s c c t i o n 33 (2) o f the Evidence A ct, 1967, S e c tio n 33 o f the Th/idcnce .c t p r o v id e s ; ( I ) When two or more persons are being t r i e d j o i n t l y and a c o n f e s s io n o f tho o ffe n c e or o f f e r e e s charged made by one o f those persons a f f e c t i n g h im s e lf and some oth er o f those p e r s o n the. Court maj talcs thal^. -conf&seien inrto c o n s id e r a tio n a g a in st th at oth er p e r s o n . (2 ) Notw ithstanding s u b -s e c t io n ( I ) a c o n v i c t io n o f an agsused p erson s h a l l n o t be based s o l e l y on a c o n fe s s io n by a co-accused^ ( 3) On h is part T'r. Zapinga, on b e h a lf o f the R e p u b lic, d e c lin e d to support the c o n v i c t i o n s . He submitted th a t, a f t e r a l l , the extra j u d i c i a l statement was n ot a c o n fe s s io n buii ra th er an e x c u l ­ p a tory statement by the second a p p e lla n t , •7e wish to sap at the o u tse t that we are unable to uphold the t r i a l C ou rt’ s d e c i s i o n . .Vhile via are s a t i s f i e d that the second a p p e lla n t d id make the statem ent, we are o f the consid ered view th at i t does n ot amount to the second a p p e lla n t c o n fe s s in g to murder. ,;t the m ost, the second ap e l ia n t agreed to p E r t i c i p a t jf l g ^ in the t h e f t o f money, but there i s no i n d i c a t i o n f o r example th at the second a p p e lla n t knew the t h e f t would be in the form o f a robbery where r e s is t a n c e would have to be overcome w ith v io l e n c e i f need be. I t would appear tnat the second a p p e lla n t agreed to p a r t i c i p a t e in the t h e f t o f money, p er s o , but t ,iere i s no eviden ce th at he knew th at the f i r s t a p p ella n t was armed w ith a ty re l e v e r f o r the purpose. In the extra j u d i c i a l statement the second a p p e l­ a n t was sa yin g in e f f e c t that he did n o t p a r t i c i p a t e in the mnrdej’ j so he was not c o n fe s s in g to the o ffe n c e charged. There was no c o n f e s s io n to r e l y on. For the sake o f argument, i f the second ap i e l l a n t was c o n f e s s ­ in g t o murder, he r e t r a c t e d the c o n fe s s io n at the t r i a l and, as ‘the learned t r i a l judge a p p r e c ia te d , such a c o n fe s s io n would r e q u ir e c o r r o b o r a t i o n . The learned t r i a l judge found such c o r r o b o r a t io n In the f o l l o w i n g p ie c e s o f (jirc 'a a s ta n tia l e v id e n c e , d e t a i l s which were in the ex tr a j u d i c i a l statem ents as w e ll as the a p p e lla n ts* eviden ce in Court and in some eases t e s t i f i e d t o a ls o by P.Y4 V?3F;.HT hG-IK. and D.-/3 TU'JI., j lrIXh'G-.... Such p ie c e s o f evidence in c lu d e ; - 1, The f a c t th at the f i r s t ap p ella n t was In llagoda v i l l a g e and. in the D ecsa scd l s company on the m a te r ia l day, 2, The f a c t tn at the second ap p ella n t borrowed a b i c y c l e from P’l/4 and retu rn ed i t at about 11 pm, 3, The f a c t th at Appellant I said he would s t e a l money intended f o r the purchase o f pyrethrum and such money was s t o l e n , •' , 4 # The f a c t th at the a p p e lla n t said he had arranged f o r D’73, the watchman, to sta y awa7 from the o f f i c a he was supposed to guard and DvO did sta y away* ■Yith due r e s p e c t ; while i t i s c o r r e c t that c ir c u m s ta n tia l evidence can p rov id e c o r r o b o r a t i o n , in the in s t a n t case we do ngt think th;.t the a lle g e d c o n fe s s io n to murder was c o rr o b o r a te d by the circum stances s e t out* 77e are o f the view t i n t there was no s e l l a b l e evidence on which to c o n v ic t the two a p p e lla n t s , Consequently4 we a llo w the a p p ea l, quash the c o n v i c t io n s , and se t aside the sentence imposed^ I f the a p p e lla n ts are not otherwise l a w fu lly in cu&ta&y they should fo r t h w ith be r e le a s e d . Before we end we wish to mention two m a tt e r s , f o r the guidance o f the Courts below . The f i r s t one i s , in a t r i a l wit lain t r i a l , i t i s the p r a c t i c e to number w itn esses d i f f e r e n t l y from the number «• in g in the main t r i a l . So that in the p resen t Cc.se, f o r example, in the t r i a l w ith in t r i a l Ci.pl„ STmVPI: would be ?.7I, and not P7I$| and the J u s t ic e o f the Peace would be P72 and n o t P'7I3. In the i n s t a n t case i f t h i s procedure was fo llo w e d th ere would not be the c o n f u s io n there i s in the record,, o f having P JI2 twice etc* L t r i a l w ith in t r i a l i s d i f f e r e n t from the main t r i a l ^ The second tilin g i s , a c c o rd in g to the r e c o r d (Page 2 1 ), the J u s t ic e o f the Peace t o l d the second a p p e lla n t th a t he, the J u s t ic e o f the Peace , v/as ;:a person who could take dov/n' a s t a t e • ment o f a person who admitted h is g u i l t ” , This was c l e a r l y wrong. I t i s not the b u sin ess o f a J u s t ic e o f the Peace to take down c o n f e s s i o n s . Ho has to take down accused p e rso n s' statem ents, even i f they do not admit g u i l t , provided that they are v o lu n ta r y . I t i s obvious th at to t e l l an accused person that a J u s tic e o f the A Pe.a«e o n ly r e c o r d s the statements o f persons who a d :'it rcailt would tand to- stren g th en c la im s, in c lu d in g unfounded on-eSj that ex tra j u d i c i a l statem ents were other than voluntary* IXTilD a t LIB'JY,* t h i s 4th day o f May, 1987* -u, J U3T..'.F~ c : . l 'F JUSTICE I c e r t i f y th at t h i s i s a tr u e copy o f the o r ig in a l* (J,H , M soffe) D^PUTT R^GI3TR .R