20050308 TZHC Mbeya

J<~ fC{J C/ff 1~j?'~i~/ft.lar~ ~ /;~ 1:.'' I i IN THE HIGH COUR')' OF TANZANIA I HI I /\T IRINGA ti ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ,, (Mbeya Registry) ' I t I 1 CRIMINAL SESSIONS CASE NO. 74 OF 2001 TI ll:-: REPUBLIC· \/[!~SUS I. ANJERO MANG 'WATA 2. DOTTO MATUTULI 3. KESSI S/0 MGOMATI 4. BONIFACE S/0 MGOMATI I,• 5. M_AKOLI MATUTUJ.J I 6. MBA VILE MANG'WATA I 7. FEDINAND S/O KAHEMELE .1 I '1 '' 'I RULING MACKANJA, J. The accused person stands trial on a L'harge of the nfurder of one Chumacharangi s/o Mela, late of Kipera village, in lringa District. It is allegeq by the Republic that the a~cused killed the deceased with malice afor~thought on the • 16 1h day .of April, 1999. One or the witnesses, C.8647 D/Stn. Sgt. Nichol'aus . (PW.4), has testified that in the course of the investigation, of which he was in- charge, he recorded a confession of the accused in a caution statement. Mr. Ml<wata, learned· defence counsel, rose to register lhc accu:;ed's objection to the effect that he (the accused) did not make any such statement. So I a. trial-within a tdal was conducted. ' I. ; In the course or the trial-within-a Lri::il D/S111. Sgl. Nicholaus (PW. l) testified as· to how the accused w ..1s arrested by members of the public who tje[ivered him LO the lringa Central Polic1.: Station in the night of 16 th /l i 11 April, 1999. That in a brier irHcrrogmion al 5.00 a.Ill. Oil 17 th April,·1999, the aGCUsed admitted· crirµi~al responsibility in which he pah1ed his accomplices. Instead of recording the accused's statemc111 under cm1tio11 PW.1 decided to pursue the I ---------- •11, I '' I ,l,j I I' ' , ', rl .... . , .. hours commencing~ c11 the time when he was taken . under ' ---+--. .-tr ••..• I' ~--r~'1lf\i,1~~(·ifi;f •, 1· ·;; ! ' : ,r- . : . _. • 1· :··in~hrff\;"'::·,. ; ·':t! ir ::? , if·• · t' l bondµcted within the firsl four hours. Urgc·ncy of investigativb\ .~~t~dri Ji:,~ ~bt a ... ;;: :·\ ~us\i~cation. If D/Stn. Sgi. Nicholaus want~d more time fof wit~~r~~i~wi~g ,' ; : \I;: _ tlhe' a~cµsed he could have ni1 c;-.;11:ntiori givc,11 him hy the Police ~~~~!~S~?:~harge ·;\ ·• · i:: · of fovestigations under s. 51 or !he said A~t. The extention wmh;~'.'.itiade if., for' , I ' . ' . ' ' l ,' i ' r,easonable caus·e, it is necessary lhal lhe suspect under restraint be further ..,d,, ,, ~ ·1,I ',I I interviewed. The said Police Officer may, under section 51 (I) of the said Act - "(a) extend the interview !'or a period not exceedir1g ~!tht hotJrS, .IiI .,. and inform the person co1~cerned accordi()gly . I! ' '·,· ,, I (b) either befor~ \he expiration ·of the otiginai period Of i!J~t: of_ · • • • I :\ ' .. the extended period, make an application to a magisµ-~{e.l6r. ~L, 1 . . ; ~~ ~ .. furLher extentjon or that period.'' . ·:[:/ft(\. '. _' ! · I . . , , ;• .. , _l- 1 :i:llr.,, ·, :\!::;'- : _· By their very nature these prov1s10ns are intended to pr,ot~it·tr ng~ts of - ; i:·{ the suspect so that restraiqt should not be used Cppriciously or vexatio_ u_:sly in.di'Per :I): I ,, ,,: ' I :. I $ ·:\! '!I i '· I • : '•;i : i '~ i i , ,tci ~J}~ill}idate the suspect or in order to coerce him into nta.IsilJgt:~i-~true: :_ · : i"!1\ 1 : cbnrissfon of guilt. And in order to underscore the importanc¢ or!M~:tth·i~tdu'al;~ ,· : ·::' .: •. :i,''. I ,' , . f~eedom of moyement, suqsection (2) of section 5 I provides thht I t' , . I ;. . ' ; '•'ia ,' -<~·, :~.:;t. · ;_ .. ! ,,-nil - . '<'. '.· 1,, I•-·. l: '1. .• '· . "(2) A Police . Officer shall 1101 Crivolously or vexatiously extend 'the b~sic period available for interviewing a person, but qny pet~onjri . . :.'. :i :i , respect of whose interview the basic period is ~xtended p4ts~_atlt,to._ '. i['.,j :. '1,:,:: \, : subsection ( I)(a}, mar petition for dama~es or c_ornpensatio~i &~~Ft: :; ·l,_.\ ·.1· ·_ .l: , .frivolous or .vexatious extention of the basic period .. ·.;,; ·. !. ·\. / ·: : · I II . ' ·j I . Ya : • ' ·_·._ .' I.· . ::An acti~n which is punishable by da1~1age is illegal. So_ 11.tii'e '.1Pro!6riged ' -~}••,? . • j•' ''II• ·1 , ••._.I . ' ' • , I j ·'.I -~.;.: . : ' ·re~train.t of a criminal suspect and thereafter bdng interviewed'. 'cSn:tr~ the I. , ; f ' 'j- .· .. . ,J•p flM· I • '. ,'. . , . 'I , .., I , i· _ st\tutory procedure are illegal. , \ 1 ;i,J i i, L_ i I have held else,-vhcre that uHjustifial,Iy prolonged restrafpt~~o~nts_ to -~ :ll : ' psychol?gktl torture which, in my opi11ion amounts to ah induce~~4t. ',w~ich is' .• ,f . ) •I ' ' , 1 I, •, j,. 4r I . ' 1 · • ' · likeiy to cause- ah untrue admission oJ' guilt. Interpreting these provis~qns e_usdem I ': · . generis, a confession which is obtained by contravening the law is equally inadmissible under s. 29 of the Evidence Act, l 967. 7 : ;.I (' 3 )I· . ·I •. 'I I ',I . !. '.,,i . f,·. • ·• H • I • =; i). ~ .:_· . J. . I~ follows that the caution statement which D/Stn. Sgt. Nicholaus (P_W. I_) f .!-:·, L reporded in contravention the clc~,r and mandatory provisions of the Ctiminal 1t_l ;~ :1:, P~ocedure Act, 1985. is inadmissible.: in evidence. Hence the first issue has been '1 '1 • 1-·'. 1· 11, • " . ·i:r· :- ~ . 't d .. I\ : . . pre~emp e . 1 1-, ;j , l . ,. Delivered JUDGE . . ,.· ' ;1 ...... .' . I . 8/3/2005. i . 'Ill:.; : ,. .;i. Nyepza, S.A. for Republic .I. . , j · • !. '., rf I ; Mr. ~kwata, Advocate for Defence 1 1·, Accused: Present in the dock. Certified true copy oC the original Ruling. '- ' '.· I I ,· I l1 i: I.