Criminal Session Case 211 of 2022 Judgment Mrisha J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY) AT DAR ES SALAAM CRIMINAL SESSIONS CASE NO. 211 OF 2022 (Originated from P.I No. 8 of 2015) REPUBLIC VERSUS HARUNA MUSSA LUGEYE.......................................................................... 1stACCUSED MWAJUMBE WENDU BAKARI.................................................................... 2ndACCUSED ALLY KHALID TAGALILE........................................................................... 3rdACCUSED JUDGMENT 2?h May & 31st July 2024 MRISHA, J. The accused persons Haruna Mussa Lugeye, Mwajumbe Wendu Bakari and Ally Khalid Tagalile henceforth the first, second and third accused persons respectively, have been in prison custody for almost nine (9) years or so after being apprehended by the police at different times and places in 2014. It appears that the three have been in such confinement due to the serious allegations of their involvement in commission of the terrorist i acts to wit; conspiracy to commit terrorist acts contrary to section 4(1), (3)(i)(i) and 27(c) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act No. 21 of 2002 (the PTA) and Possession of Property for commission of terrorist acts contrary to 4 (1) (3) (i) (i) and section 15 (b) of the PTA hereinafter referred to as the first and second counts with which the abovenamed accused persons stands charged jointly and together, save for the third count of Provision of funds to commit terrorist acts c/s 4(1) (3) (i) (i) and section 13 of the PTA of which the first accused stands charged alone. The allegations in relation to the first count are to the effect that on the diverse dates between 1st May, 2013 and 4th December, 2014 in various places between Dar es Salaam and Arusha regions, Haruna Mussa Lugeye, Mwajumbe Wendu Bakari and Ally Khalid Tagalile jointly and together with other persons not in court, did conspire to commit an offence to wit: attacking and causing serious bodily harm to Hon. Mizengo Kayanza Peter Pinda, the then Prime Minister of the United Republic of Tanzania, an act which may reasonably be regarded as having been intended to be for the purpose of intimidating a section of the Public within United Republic of Tanzania. In the second count, it was alleged that Haruna Mussa Lugeye, Mwajumbe Wendu Bakari and Ally Khalid Tagalile, on diverse 2 dates between 1st May, 2013 and 4th December, 2014 at Mwembe Yanga area within Temeke District and Bangulo CCM area within Ilala District in Dar es Salaam Region, jointly and together, were found in possession of two offensive hand grenades, knowingly that they will be directly used to facilitate the commission of a terrorist act, to wit: attacking and causing serious bodily harm to Hon. Mizengo Kayanza Peter Pinda, the then Prime Minister of the United Republic of Tanzania, an act which involves prejudice to national security and by its nature and context may reasonably be regarded as having been intended to be for the purpose of intimidating a section of the Public within the United Republic of Tanzania. And, in the third count, it was alleged that Haruna Mussa Lugeye, on diverse dates between 1st day of January, 2013 and 31st December, 2013 at Arusha Region, did provide a sum of Tanzania Shilling two hundred thousand (TZS 200,000/=) only, to Yahaya s/o Hassan Hela @Sensei, knowing that the said funds will be used in whole in carrying out terrorist acts, to wit; acquisition of hand grenades for purposes of attacking and causing serious bodily harm to Hon. Mizengo Kayanza Peter Pinda, the then Prime Minister of the United Republic of Tanzania, an act which involves prejudice to national security and by its nature and context may reasonably be regarded as having been 3 intended to be for the purpose of intimidating the Public within the United Republic of Tanzania. Following a total denial by the said accused persons in relation to those criminal allegations, the prosecution Republic paraded a total of nine (9) witnesses and managed to tender six (6) exhibits in order to establish their case against the first, second and third accused persons. On the other side, the accused persons upon been found with a case to answer, informed the court that each of them would bring his/her witnesses, and some promised to tender exhibits. However, in the end they entered their defence as DW1, DW2 and DW3, save for the third accused who apart from testifying as the sole defence witness on his side, tendered two documentary exhibits which were admitted collectively as Exhibit D2, as they will be described shortly hereunder. The manner in which the matter was being heard, was different. This is because of the nature of the offences the accused persons were charged with thus necessitating the identities of the prosecution witnesses to be withheld by naming them as P, P7, P11, P1, P4, P8, P9, P3 and P2 respectively and by following their chronological order of adducing evidence before the court. In summary, the evidence adduced by witnesses from both sides is as follows: 4 For the prosecution side, P who testified as PW1, narrated that he is a police officer. In 2014 he was a Deputy Commissioner of Police at the Head Quarters of Criminal Investigation in Dar es Salaam. His main duties there were to administer criminal investigation on criminal offences which endangers security of the State including, but not limited to terrorist acts. On May, 2014 he was instructed by his superior boss to go to Arusha, join the investigation team and conduct criminal investigation about the incident of bomb blast which had occurred there. That in the course of conducting such investigation, his colleagues informed him that there was a person by the name of Haruna Mussa Lugeye (the first accused person) who had received the bombs which were sent to him from Arusha by Yahaya Hassan Hela @Sensei, a leader of a terrorist group whose main duty had been to recruit young people from across the country to join his group. That upon gathering such information, PW1 communicated with his fellows at Dar es Salaam and instructed them to trace the whereabouts of Haruna Mussa Lugeye as well as the said bombs and arrest him. On 13.08.2014 his subordinates called and informed him that they had managed to apprehend the said suspect at the Head Quarters of Zantel 5 where he was working, then he instructed them to go with him to his premises and conduct search. However, PW1 said his subordinates told him that when the search was still underway, Haruna Mussa Lugeye escaped from police lawful custody which act had increased a high suspicion that probably the said suspect would use the bombs in his possession to destroy the Police Station and cause harrows to the people. He therefore, ordered his subordinates to find and rearrest Haruna Mussa Lugeye. According to him, it took longer to rearrest the said suspect. In conclusion, PW1 narrated that he could not be able to identify Haruna Mussa Lugeye because he had not met with him before. He also said that he was the investigator of this case, but he did not get a chance of seeing the two bombs alleged to be in possession of the said suspect and yet he is not ballistic expert. PW2 (P7) testified that he is a police officer. In 2014 he was working at the Tanzania Police Head Quarters with the Criminal Investigation Department. His main duties while being there, were to arrest criminal offenders, investigate crimes, record witnesses' statements and perform other duties assigned to him by his superior boss. 6 That on 13.08.2014 he was at his work place when his superior boss instructed him to find and arrest Haruna Mussa Lugeye who was suspected to have been in possession of two bombs allegedly sent to him from Arusha. Thereafter, PW2 and his colleagues began to trace the said suspect by using investigation information which revealed that the man was working at Zantel Head Quarters, near American Embassy at Oysterbay in Dar es Salaam after leaving the Tampro office at Magomeni, Dar es Salaam. At Zantel Head Quarters office, PW2 and his fellow police officers introduced themselves to Haruna's superior boss and informed him that they went there to arrest Haruna Mussa Lugeye and take him to the Police Station for investigation purpose. After some few hours Haruna Mussa Lugeye showed up. Thereafter his boss introduced PW2 and his colleagues to him, and then they arrested the said suspect and informed him that he was suspected to have committed the terrorist acts which included possession of two bombs transported to him from Arusha. Thereafter, PW2 and his fellow police officers conveyed Haruna Mussa Lugeye (the first accused) to the Police Head Quarters where they reached at around 1800 hours, then PW2 7 handed over the said suspect to his superior boss who had the rank of ASP. PW2 added that after doing so, his boss began to interview the first accused who responded by confessing to have committed the offence of terrorism. He also told them that his house is located at Pugu, Bangulo area within Dar es Salaam and after such confession, PW2, his boss and other police officers took the said accused person to his premises in order to conduct a search. However, before doing so, his boss found the independent witnesses who were a male and a female. After arriving at the first accused's home place, they found his two wives, his children as well and began to search inside the accused's house but could find the bombs which the said accused claimed to have hidden therein. Later, the first accused asked for a permission to go to the toilet which is inside his house for a short call, but after some few minutes it was learnt that he had escaped from police lawful custody. Following that incident, PW2 reported it to his superior boss who then instructed him and his colleagues to write their statements and continue finding Haruna Mussa Lugeye. Finally, PW2 identified Haruna Mussa Lugeye in the dock as the first accused person. 8 P11 who testified as PW3, told the court that he is the Police Exhibit Keeper at Stakishari Police Station where he has been working from 2014 to date. He acquired the knowledge of keeping exhibits at Zanzibar Police College. As the Exhibit Keeper, his daily duties have been to receive exhibits and keep them in the exhibit room, to remove exhibits from the exhibit room and handover to other police officers for tendering them before the courts of law. After describing the procedure of receiving exhibits which also include registering them in the Exhibits Register Book, PW3 narrated that on 04.12.2014 at 1330 hours he was at Stakishari Police Station performing his official duties, then his superior boss who was the Head of Investigation Department. Upon responding to such call, PW3 found his boss with some guests whose number was between five to six persons and some of them were police officers whilst the rest, a male and female, were the suspects. PW3 added that in the course of making an introduction, his boss told him that the said two suspects were found with two bombs and one rubber shoe. Hence, he gave him those objects for him to receive and keep them as exhibits. That in dealing with those exhibits, PW3 marked the first bomb with letter T1, the second with letter T2 and he marked the rubber shoe with 9 letter T3 then he labelled them with PF No. 145 which is a special label used to title the exhibit with a case number which was STK/IR/10929/2014. PW3 further testified that the said bombs were wrapped in a foil paper and put in the shoe meaning that the said shoe was used to carry them. After receiving the exhibits, he registered them in the Exhibit Register book by giving them number 178 of 2014 just after registering them. He also recorded a case number STK/IR/10929/2014 which he had obtained from the Ballistic Specialist. Then he recorded the name of the Police officer who is a Ballistic specialist. Thereafter, PW3 kept the exhibits of bombs in a Special room with an air condition which is located beside Stakishari Police Station due to their nature as explosive weapons. He described the room as having enough space and air conditioner and there is a gate whereas regarding the rubber shoe, he kept it in the normal Exhibits room. The exhibit of a rubber shoe was kept in a normal room different to the one he used to keep the two bombs. It was his further testimony that on 05.12.2014 the Explosives Specialist who had previously brought those bombs to him, approached him and took them from him in order to convey them to the Ballistic Bureau for examination to see whether they weapons were alive or not. He added 10 that the handing over of the two bombs between him and the said specialist, took place at 0900 hours. PW3 went on testifying that on 08.12.2014 at 13:00 hours, he was at his office when P3 (PW8) arrived at his office and handed to him three exhibits which were the two bombs with letters T1 and T2, and a tag No. FB/BALL/LAB/150/2014 together with a Ballistic Forensic Examination Report, then he kept those exhibits and wait for investigation of the case. Having produced the above testimony and upon been given a chance, PW3 managed to identify the Exhibits Register Book with PF 16 and Exhibit No. 178/2014 and prayed to tender it as an exhibit. His prayer was granted and the court admitted that book as Exhibit P1. He also managed to identify the two bombs with letters T1 and T2 respectively which he also prayed to tender as exhibits and the court admitted those bombs collectively as Exhibit P2. Apart from that, PW3 identified the rubber shoe with letter T3 and prayed to tender it as an exhibit. Similarly, his prayer was granted and that shoe was admitted into evidence as Exhibit P3. The evidence of that prosecution witness was followed by that of P1 who testified as PW4. It was his testimony that currently he is a 11 Commissioner of Police, but before that he was the SP (Senior Superintendent of Police) since 2014 before he was promoted to the rank which he now has. During that time, he was working at the Head Quarters of Commission of Crime Intelligence and his main duty was to make follow up on the information of crime cases in accordance with directives of his supervisor boss. In relation to the case at hand, PW4 testified that on 02.12.2014 during night hours, he was at his work place when the DCI (Director of Criminal Investigation) called and instructed him to rearrest the suspect Haruna Mussa Lugeye outside the DCI's office, who had surrendered himself to the police after escaping from police custody in August, 2014. Having received such instruction, PW4 rearrested the said suspect. He also told the court that the offences the said suspect was suspected to have committed included transportation of the hand grenades, conspiracy and escape under the custody of Police. That thereafter, they started talking friendly and the said suspect told him that he had received a parcel of two hand grenades from one Yahaya Hassan Hela @Sensei of Arusha and it was delivered to him at Mwembeyanga, Dar es Salaam through a driver of the vehicle make Fuso, but he did not remember the name of that driver. 12 That the suspect also told PW4 that there were four bombs of which two of them were delivered to him at Dar es Salaam and the rest were transported to Arusha by one Ally Khalid Tagalile. The suspect further told him that after receiving the first two bombs, he kept them underground near the coconut tree log which was outside his house. In addition to the above, PW4 testified that the suspect also told him that when he was in the hiding place, he called his second wife namely Mwajumbe Wendu Bakari, instructed her to remove the said parcel from the ground at his house, take them to his farm which is located at Pugu, Bangulo, CCM in Dar es Salaam and hide it underground therein. Moreover, PW4 testified that because it was already midnight, he restrained the said suspect at Dar es Salaam Central Police Station until the following day in order to continue with further investigation. On 03.12.2014 at about 0500 hours PW4 and other police officers, reached at the Central Police Station where they took the suspect Haruna Mussa Lugeye from the lockup for the purpose of going with him to his premises for conducting a search. Before leaving there, PW4 asked the suspect Haruna Mussa Lugeye about the offences he was suspected to have committed and the suspect replied by giving him the same explanation he had given him in the previous day, but he added by telling him that his friend Yahaya 13 Hassan Hela @ Sensei was in Dar es Salaam and had rented a house at Kipawa area and he was ready to show him that place. After getting such information, PW4 and his investigation team members went to the house alleged to have been rented by that other suspect, but they didn't find him. Also, their efforts to search and capture the alleged two bombs in and outside Haruna Mussa Lugeye’s premises in presence of independent witnesses reaped no fruits. However, PW4 testified that with the assistance of the said suspect, they managed to find his two wives, but after interrogating them, they observed that the first wife of the suspect knew nothing about the whereabouts of the parcel, but the second wife whom they arrested at Ubungo Bus Terminal on the same date. Her response after being interrogated, revealed that she had previously been called by her husband Haruna Mussa Lugeye who directed her to transfer the parcel from his premises to his farm and hide it therein. However, PW4 said that because it was already night, and considering the nature of the explosive weapons they were looking for, he decided not to go to that farm and conduct search until the following day. Hence, he ordered that the two suspects be remanded at Stakishari Police Station until that date. 14 In the morning of 04.12.2014 PW4 and his colleagues who included the explosive's specialist, photographer as well as the crime scene investigator, went to Stakishari Police Station where they picked up the suspects Haruna Mussa Lugeye and his second wife who began to guide them to the farm of Haruna Mussa Lugeye where she had hidden the two bombs. However, PW4 said before approaching the said farm, they found independent witnesses who were agreed by both sides and proceeded to that farm. Upon arrival, the second wife of Haruna Mussa Lugeye showed the police a point where she had dug and hidden the said bombs, then the explosive's specialist used his expertise to detect the said bombs, dig the land and unveiled a dark blue rubber shoe with some objects being wrapped up in a foil paper. Thereafter, the said specialist unfolded the foil paper and removed from it two objects which he identified to be the hand grenades and each of them had the word "M”" on its front part. After the said specialist assured PW4 that the said hand grenades had safety, PW4 spent some time to observe them and noted that each of them had a light green colour and began to sustain some rust because of being kept underground. 15 PW4 added that by appearance, the two bombs looked like eggs and each of them had a joint on its middle part and they bared the words, “RDG5 Russian”. Thereafter, the explosive specialist labelled the first­ hand grenade with letter T1, the second with letter T2 and for the dark blue rubber, he labelled it with letter T3. Thereafter, PW4 filled a certificate of seizure of those weapons, let the two suspects Haruna Mussa Lugeye, his wife and the independent witnesses to sign that document, and then he ended signing on it as the last person. From the said suspect's farm, PW4 led the investigation team together with the suspects and the independent witnesses to the nearby Bangulo CCM Office and began to record witnesses' statements. After completion of that exercise which ended at 1100 hours, PW4 led the investigation team to Stakishari Police Station where he opened the case file of Being found with two bombs, surrendered the exhibits and availed the suspects with copies of a certificate of seizure, then he left them under the custody of the Assistant Superintendent of Police at Stakishari Police Station and proceeded to his office together with other police officers. On 18.12.2014 PW4 was informed that another suspect called Ally Khalid Tagalile was residing at Singida where he was working in one of the Sunflower industries. After getting such information, he directed 16 the police officers go there and arrest him and on 20.12.2014 Ally Khalid Tagalile was arrested, then conveyed to Dar es Salaam and restrained at the Tanzania Police Force Head Quarters. Apart from that, PW4 identified the certificate of seizure before the court and urged it to admit that document as an exhibit. His prayer was granted and the said certificate was admitted as Exhibit P4. He also testified that the search was conducted to the two suspects namely Haruna Mussa Bakari and Mwajumbe Wendu Bakari who were found with two hand grenades make RDG5 which were wrapped up in a foil paper, placed in a rubber shoe and hidden underground. He further testified that together with those items, they also found one can with some liquid in that shoe. Thereafter, PW4 managed to identify Exhibit P2 before the court as being the two hand grenades with words, "R.DG”" and letters T1 and T2 for the first- and second-hand grenades respectively. He also managed to identify Exhibit P3 (the dark blue rubber) together with the first and second accused persons namely Haruna Mussa Lugeye and Mwajumbe Wendu Bakari before the court. Besides, in the course of his testimony, PW4 was cross examined by the defence counsel about his previous recorded statement whose contents appeared to differ with his oral testimony before the court regarding the 17 place he had arrested the first accused second wife and he said he does not have any objection for that statement to be admitted as exhibit on the part of the defence side. The prosecution had no query on that prayer; hence, the said statement was admitted by the court as Exhibit D1 and that marked the end of PW4's evidence in terms of narration. The next to him, was P4 who testified before this court as PW5. He told the court that on 2014 he was a peasant and street leader of Bangulo street at Ilala District within Dar es Salaam Region. Apart from that he was a watchman. He began to be a leader of Bangulo street since 2010. His main duties were to administer peace and development activities in the area. That on 03.12.2014 at around 16:00, he was approached at his home by two police officers who requested him to participate as the independent witness in searching the premises of Haruna Mussa Lugeye whom they suspected to have been involved in commission of terrorist acts and in possession of bombs at his home place. After approaching the home of the said suspect at 0200 hours, the police officers searched in and outside his premises, but they found nothing. Thereafter, Haruna Mussa Lugeye was asked by the police where he had kept the said bombs and he replied that he had instructed his second wife to transfer them to his farm which is located at Bangulo, 18 CCM area. He added that he knows the said suspect because he used to live in his area/street. On 04.12.2014 at about 08:00 hours, PW5 was approached by the same police officers who requested him to be an independent witness in conducting another search at the farm of Haruna Mussa Lugeye because they got some information that his second wife whom they had also arrested, had transferred those bombs to that farm. Before going there, they passed at Haruna Mussa Lugeye's home where they picked other two street leaders as well as the suspect's wives, boarded into police vehicles and proceeded to the farm of Haruna Mussa Lugeye. Upon arrival, the second wife of Haruna Mussa Lugeye who was commonly known as "Mwjjumbe," showed the police the point where she had dug and hidden the bombs, then one of the police officers who was the explosives specialist, cordoned the area, asked PW5 and other persons to stay away from the area, then he began to dig that place in order to capture those bombs. Meanwhile, PW5, other police officers and the two suspects were witnessing the process at the nearby. Soon thereafter, the said specialist took out a dark blue rubber shoe, spotted some objects inside being wrapped up in a foil paper and began to observe them, then he called PW5 and other people to come closer to 19 him. Thereafter, the said specialist unfolded the foil paper, removed the two objects which he described to them as being the two hand grenades, then he used a marker pen to label the first-hand grenade with letter T1 and the second with letter T2. Those two objects were of light green colour and each of them had a pin. The explosives specialist also marked the dark blue shoe with letter T3. PW5 added that apart from those items, they also found at the crime scene one can which contained some liquid. Thereafter, the leader of the police officers instructed one of the police officers to fill in the certificate of seizure form. After that, PW5 was given that form to write his name and sign it and also his colleagues together with the suspects Haruna Mussa Lugeye and his second wife were given the said form for them to sign and write their names; finally, the police officer signed that form. After the search process, they went to the office of Bangulo CCM where the police began to record the witnesses' statements. After completion of that exercise, the police left the area with the suspects and PW5 went back home to proceed with his normal business. Apart from that, PW5 identified the first and second accused persons in the dock. He also managed to identify Exhibits P2, P3 and P4 before the court. Another prosecution witness to take the flow, was P8 who adduced his evidence as PW6. Professionally, he is a Police Criminal Investigator with 20 the rank of SSP (Senior Superintendent of Police). He has been working with the Head Quarters of Tanzania Police Force for some years. In 2014 he was working with the Head Quarters of Criminal Investigation Department, Dar es Salaam as the Inspector of Police. His main duties by then were to prevent crimes, identify accused persons, conduct search in the crime scene and to draw sketch maps at the crime scenes. In adducing his evidence before the court, PW6 gave just the same story as that of PW2 and PW4 about tracing the whereabouts of the first two accused persons in connection with the allegations of their involvement in committing the terrorist acts and about tracing the whereabouts of another suspect called Yahaya Hassan Hela @Sensei who is not part of the present case. Also, his evidence repeated what was stated by PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5 about conducting search in the premises of the first accused's premises at Bangulo area on 03.12.2014 in which no suspected hand grenades were found. He also gave the same story about going to the alleged farm of the first accused person on 04.12.2014 under the guidance of the first accused's second wife one Mwajumbe Wendu Bakari who is alleged to have 21 transferred the said hand grenades from the first accused premises to the latter's farm at Bangulo CCM after been instructed by her husband, the first accused. Not only that, but also like the rest of the prosecution witnesses who testified about the search conducted on 04.12.2014, PW6 told the court that after the second accused had shown the police where she had hidden those explosive weapons, the explosive specialist managed to detect and capture two hand grenades which were wrapped up in a foil paper, placed in a dark blue rubber shoe and proceeded to mark the first hand grenade with letter T1, the second hand grenade with letter T2 and the dark blue rubber with letter T3. PW6 further testified that he knew the discovered objects were hand grenades because of his experience as the Police Criminal Investigator. It was his further testification that after completion of the search process, his superior boss filled in and signed the certificate of seizure then the suspects Haruna Mussa Lugeye and Mwajumbe Wendu Bakari, two independent witnesses together with the explosive's specialist signed it as well, and in the end, he drew a sketch map of the crime scene under the direction of the second accused person. That from there, the exhibits were picked up by the explosive's specialist, then the convoy went to Bangulo, CCM office for recording of 22 witnesses' statements whereafter they headed to Stakishari Police Station where they handled over the suspects, then PW6 went back to his office with the sketch map of the crime scene. However, his attempt to have it being admitted as an exhibit did not succeed due to a number of legal objections by the defence counsel which were sustained by the court. Apart from that, PW6 managed to identify Haruna Mussa Lugeye and Mwajumbe Wendu Bakari as the first and second accused persons respectively. Apart from that, he also managed to identify Exhibits P2, P3 and P4 before the court. Another prosecution witness was P9. In this case he stood as PW7. His evidence described him as a police officer who has been working with the Explosives Laboratory at Dar es Salaam which is under the Forensic Bureau within the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Tanzania Police Force. According to him, the said laboratory deals with examination of guns, bullets, head bullets, sharp objects and explosives like bombs and sharp objects. He has been working there as the specialist on weapons and explosives the expertise/knowledge he acquired within and outside Tanzania in countries like Botswana, Turkey and South Korea and he has sixteen years work experience in the said profession. 23 After receiving exhibit (s) from the Regional or District Criminal Investigation Departments, the next step is to register them in the Laboratory Register. The aim of doing so is first, to acknowledge that the exhibit was received and secondly, is to differentiate them with other exhibits. The next step is to list the exhibit (s) in the forensic laboratory books. Another step is to label the exhibits in order to differentiate them with other exhibits and to simplify the investigation. The mark put in the exhibit is alphabet A - Z or numbers from 1 to 9. Normally they conduct two kinds of examination namely Visual or Physical examination and Comparison examination. Visual or Physical examination is done by using eyes and magnifying glasses, Caliber gauge and Caliber pin. The exhibits which they examine through visual examination are those which needs no comparison; for example, bullets and bombs. Apart from explaining about the above procedure, PW7 testified that on 05.12.2014 at 1000 hours, he was at his office when P3 (henceforth PW8) from Ukonga District Criminal Investigation Department, approached him with exhibits of two hand grenades which he handed over to him together a covering letter for him to examine them in order to know their effects to human being. 24 The said bombs when received by PW7, were wrapped up in a foil paper. After recording and reading the covering letter, he satisfied himself that the letter met all the requirements, and then he registered the said exhibits in the Laboratory Register with registration number FB/BALL/LAB/150/2014. After doing so, he listed them in the Laboratory Exhibit Book as exhibits A and B, for the first and second-hand grenades respectively which had the IR Number STK/IR/10929/2014 he found in a covering letter. Thereafter, PW7 began to examine them by using Visual or Physical Examination and on 08.12.2014 he prepared his Forensic Examination Report together with exhibits A and B and handled it over to P3(PW8) together with those exhibits. PW7 further testified that he could identify the said hand grenades if the first-hand grenade bears a mark which is T1 and if the second has the mark which is letter T2. Also, he could identify the said explosive weapons if they all bear the laboratory number FB/BAB/LAB/150/2014, the IR case number STK/IR/10989/2014 and if each of them bears the words, “RGD5”. Upon being shown the said bombs which were admitted collectively as Exhibit P2, PW7 managed to identify it. He also identified the Forensic Examination Report and urged the court to admit it as an exhibit. His 25 prayer was granted and the said report was admitted by the court as Exhibit P5. Not only that, but also PW7 testified that the two hand grenades he examined in the laboratory, were made in Russia because the buttock of each of them was written RGD5 Russia which proves that the said bombs were made in Russia RGDS in order to help a soldier who attacks the enemies. He added that the said bombs can cause damage from the distance of 20 to 30 meters when thrown. At that distance the said bombs can kill or cause grievous harm to a human being and if they are exploded within two hundred (200) meters distance, they can cause harassment or vibrations. He used visual examination method which helped him to come up with the conclusive findings that the said hand grenades were live bombs. According to him, the type of bombs he examined, can explode, and in order to explode them, the exploding person should hold the bomb together with a lever by using one hand and then use another hand's finger to pull the safety pull ring for it to detect the fuse. The next prosecution witness was P3 (PW8) whose evidence was to the effect that he is a Police Officer who in 2014 used to work as the 26 Assistant Inspector at the Department dealing with Terrorism in Dar es Salaam. As a leader of Criminal Investigation team, his duties were to lead his fellow police officers, to participate in the activities concerning explosives and also to provide explosive awareness to the police officers inside and outside the country and to perform any other duties assigned to him by his supervisor. He studied about explosives outside the country in countries like USA, Italy, India, Jordan, Rwanda, Kenya, Uganda, Botswana and South Africa. Therefore, he has four years' experience in that department. According to him, there are two types of bombs; one, those manufactured in the industry and two, those manufactured locally. The procedure of defusing local made bombs are, one, to evacuate people around the bombed area, cordon the area, scan the bomb by suing a scan machine and after scanning the bomb, you know the power of the bomb, thereafter you either destruct the bombs or defuse it. If you destruct the bomb, it means you destroy it completely and if you defuse the bomb, it means the bomb remains undistracted/undestroyed and that gives you a chance of collecting evidence from the person who set the bomb. 27 PW8 further clarified that for the bomb manufactured in the industry, the procedure is to make a physical identification or observation; if it appears that the safety pin was removed, you will take a step of destructing the bomb. However, before destructing the bomb, you must take a picture and destruct the bomb, whereas if the safety pin is intact, you will take that bomb as an exhibit. Also, at the crime scene you must inspect the area in order to know if there is no secondary explosive. On 03.12.2014 he was at his work place performing his duties, then as the explosive's specialist, he was instructed to assign one of his subordinates to join the investigation team which was required to go and conduct search at the premises of an accused person who was suspected to have been in possession of bombs. He then assigned one of his subordinates who went to the premises of that accused person and assisted in the search process, but the said bombs were not found. On 04.12.2014 he was again instructed to assign another explosives specialist to join the team to conduct another search in the farm of the first accused person which is at Pugu, Bangulo, CCM. However, at this time he decided to join the investigation team and do the job himself. Hence, before going to the suspect's farm, they passed at Stakishari Police Station where they picked the suspects Haruna Mussa Lugeye and his wife Mwajumbe Wendu Bakari then proceeded to the house 28 of the former suspect where they arrived at 0900 hours and then the convoy team leader with the rank of SSP (Senior Superintendent of Police), found three independent witnesses; thereafter, they started a trip to Haruna's farm at Pugu, Bangulo under the guidance of the latter's second wife. Upon arrival, they entered into the first accused's farm which contained some cashew nut trees and grasses indicating that it was not well cleaned, then the second suspect Mwajumbe Wendu Bakari directed to the tree and showed PW8 the place where she had hidden the bombs. After being shown the place, PW8 used a code tape to cycle the area; he also asked the suspects, other police officers and witnesses to stay away from the bomb suspected area for about ten meters, then he used a bomb detector to search that point until when he spotted the point where the bombs were. After that he used a small hoe, which was not electric conductor, to dig the area and that is when he saw a dark blue rubber shoe, and then removed it therefrom. From that shoe, PW8 observed some objects being wrapped up in a foil paper and after unfolding it by using a none electric knife, he saw two hand grenades with a fuse pin on each of them. According to him, the 29 two were like an orange and on their lower parts and they had words which reads, “RGD5”. That when he continued to dig the area, he saw a black bag. Thereafter, he marked the first-hand grenade with letter T1, the second with letter T2 and the rubber shoe with letter T3. The whole process was witnessed by the independent witnesses who were around. PW8's further testimony was that after labelling those exhibits, the convoy team leader asked Haruna Mussa Lugeye where he got those hand grenades and the said suspect responded that he got them from Arusha and was intending to use them in attacking the former Prime Minister Hon. Mizengo Kayanza Peter Pinda. Not only that, but also PW8 testified that when asked why he wanted to attack the said former Prime Minister, Haruna Mussa Lugeye responded that it is because the said leader was one of the persons who were against the Muslim community and an obstacle to their plan of establishing an Islamic State in the country. According to PW8, the other questions asked by the convoy team leader, were intended to know how the said suspect and his colleagues planned to attack the Hon. retired Prime Minister and the suspect's response was that since the said leader used to pass at Chanika, Dar es Salaam and 30 sponsor a certain youth group dealing with business of making bricks before he could proceed to his premises, that is where they planned to accomplish their plan of attacking him. PW8 further testified that after such interrogation, he instructed his subordinate police officer to bring him a bucket which he used to keep the discovered hand grenades and he also used the exhibit envelope to keep the dark blue rubber in which those explosive weapons were found. Thereafter, the convoy team leader who had the rank of SSP, filled in the seizure certificate, signed, then handed it over to him, to the above-named suspects and the independent witnesses to sign it, something which they all did. From there, they went to the nearby area called CCM, Bangulo office where other police officers began to record the witnesses' statement and after completion of that exercise, they went back to Stakishari Police Station where PW8 handled over the exhibits to the Exhibits Keeper at around 1200 hours, then he proceeded to his office at Ukonga, Dar es Salaam to continue with other official duties. On 08.12.2014 he was instructed by the DCI (Director of Criminal Investigation) to go back to Stakishari Police Station, pick up the exhibits which were two hand grenades, take them to the Forensic Bureau for examination and return them back to Stakishari Police Station. 31 After receiving those instructions, he approached the OCCID (Officer Commanding Criminal Investigation Department) of Stakishari Police Station who handed over to him a covering letter whilst the Exhibit Keeper handed over to him the two hand grenades make RDG5 with letters T1 and T2 together with the forms. Thereafter, PW8 conveyed those exhibits to the Forensic Bureau Department where he met P8 (PW7) and handed them over to him together with a covering letter issued to him by the OCCID of Stakishari Police Station. The handover process between the two was done by both of them signing the Exhibit Register. On the same date, in the noon hours, PW8 received an instruction to go back to the Forensic Office, receive the bombs and return them to Stakishari Police Station, then he complied with that instruction by going to the Forensic Office where he met a Police Inspector who gave him the uncovered hand grenades make RDG5 which had the Laboratory Number and letters T1 and T2. That, apart from the two hand grenades, the said Inspector also handed over to him a Forensic Examination Report, but he did not open it. After the handover over process, PW8 took the three exhibits to the OCCID of Stakishari Police Station who then instructed him to hand them over to 32 the Exhibit Keeper who was PW3, by dispatch, the instruction which he complied with, and then he went back to his office. Apart from that testimony, PW8 managed to identify Haruna Mussa Lugeye and Mwajumbe Wendu Bakari as the first and second accused persons respectively in the dock by their physical appearance and names. Not only that, he also managed to identify Exhibits P2, P3 and P4 before the court. The last from the prosecution side was P2 (PW9). His evidence was to the effect that he has been working with the Tanzania Police Force as a Police Officer since 2000. In December, 2014 he was working at the Head Quarters of Police, at Investigation Department. During that time, he had the rank of ASP (Assistant Superintendent of Police) and his main duties were to interrogate the accused persons, record cautioned statements of the accused persons, arrest the accused persons and prepare case files. On 04.12.2014 at 1345 hours, he was at his office when his superior boss called and gave him a case file with reference number STK/IR/10929/2014 which involved two suspects namely Haruna Mussa Lugeye and Mwajumbe Wendu Bakari who were suspected to have committed the offences of terrorism. 33 After being given the briefing of the case, his superior boss required him to record the cautioned statement of Haruna Mussa Lugeye, the first suspect. After preparing the recording tools and the room, PW9 took the first suspect to his office, gave him a chair to seat, introduced himself to the suspect that he is a police officer and told him that he wanted to record his statement. At that time, the suspect was in a good health condition. After introducing himself to the suspect, PW9 cautioned him that he was accused of committing the offences of conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism and being found in possession of bombs and that he was not forced to say anything, but if he makes any statement before him, it will be recorded and used as evidence against him before a court of law. After cautioning the said suspect, PW9 gave him the right to call his relative, advocate or friend to be present when his statement would be recorded, but the said suspect opted to make his statement alone, then he signed on the caution part and PW9 signed his which indicated that all the above rights were provided to the said suspect. After the said suspect had been informed all his rights and signed the cautioned statement, PW9 asked him if he was willing to make his statement; he replied by saying that he was willing to make his 34 statement alone before PW9, then he signed on the cautioned statement paper, so did PW9. Inside the room, there were no other persons than PW9 and the said suspect. The accused person told him that his name is Haruna Mussa Lugeye. The room which was used to record his statement was a normal office with full light, shelves, one table and two chairs. Before he started recording the suspect's statement, PW9 asked the suspect if he could write his statement or narrate and let him record it and the suspect opted to narrate his statement and let PW9 to record it from him. PW9 started recording the suspect's cautioned statement in the Head Quarters of Tanzania Police Force, Dar es Salaam at 14:00hrs on 04.12.2014, under section 58 of the CPA (Criminal Procedure Act) and finished at 1520 hrs. After the suspect finished narrating his statement, PW9 asked him to read the statement which he recorded from him, but the suspect asked him to read the statement for him and after doing so, PW9 gave it to the suspect to sign it before he could sign it as well. Finally, both of them signed and wrote their certifications on that document. Thereafter, PW9 returned the suspect back to his superior boss whom he also handed 35 over the suspect's cautioned statement. He added that the suspect was in a good condition when he returned him to his boss. Apart from that, PW9 managed to identify Haruna Mussa Lugeye as the first accused person in the dock. Not only that, but also, he managed to identify the cautioned statement of the said accused person and prayed that it be admitted by the court as an exhibit. His prayer was objected, not only by the first accused's advocate, but also other advocates for the second and third accused persons joined hands with their learned friend for the first accused who, inter alia, claimed that the statement, be it taken from his client, was not voluntary made. That necessitated a trial within a trial to be conducted by the court in order to determine whether such statement was voluntary and legally obtained from the said accused person. In the end, the court through its ruling dated the 22nd April, 2024, answered those important questions in the affirmative and proceeded to admit the first accused's cautioned statement as Exhibit P6. In furtherance of his evidence, PW9 testified that in making his cautioned statement, the first accused confessed to him that after receiving the two hand grenades which were wrapped up in a foil paper 36 with one can which contained some liquid, he kept them under the coconut tree log outside his house. He also told him that after escaping from police custody he fled to Tabora and then instructed his second wife through a mobile phone, to transfer the parcel to his farm which is located at Pugu, Bangulo, Dar es Salaam. His second wife is the one who guided the police to his farm where she had hidden the two hand grenades. Not only that, but also it was the testimony of PW9 that on 18.12.2014 he was assigned to go to Singida with his fellow police men to arrest another suspect called Ally Khalid Tagalile who was also suspected to have been involved in commission of terrorism acts. He complied with that instruction by going to Singida with his fellow police officers where they reached at night in the following day of 19.12.2014. In the morning, they began to trace the whereabouts of the said third suspect and managed to apprehend him in the evening hours at the industry called Singida Fresh Oil Processing Industry where he was working. After arresting that suspect, PW9 informed him that he was arrested because he was suspected to have committed the terrorist acts, then a trip of conveying that suspect to Dar es Salaam began. At Dar es Salaam 37 they reached in the afternoon of 20.12.2014 and PW9 handed over the said suspect to his superior boss at the Head Quarters of Police Criminal Investigation, Dar es Salaam. He added that from Singida all the way to Dar es Salaam, the said suspect was in good health condition. At 1330 hours, PW9 was called by his superior boss who instructed him to pick the said suspect and record his cautioned statement. Before doing so, he prepared a room and the recording tools, then he picked the suspect to that room which had a big window, two chairs, one table and enough light. Thereafter, PW9 introduced himself to the said suspect and informed him about the offences he was suspected to have committed. He also cautioned and informed him that he was not forced to say anything before him, but if he says anything, the same will be recorded and used before a court of law as evidence against him. In response, the suspect Ally Khalid Tagalile told PW9 that he would like to make his statement alone, but when asked to sign the caution part, the said suspect asked PW9 to write it for him, then after PW9 did so, the said suspect appended his signature on the caution part by using Arabic language. 38 Also, PW9 testified that he began to record the cautioned statement of the said suspect under section 58 of the CPA, in the Head Quarters of Criminal Investigation Department, Dar es Salaam at 1400 hours and finished doing so at 1516 hours. That after finished to record that statement, he asked the said suspect to read it, but the latter asked him to read it and after doing so, the said suspect confirmed to PW9 that the contents of that statement were correct. Thereafter, both of them signed the statement. PW9 added that when he asked the suspect to write his certification, the latter requested him to write it for him something which he did, and then PW9 signed below that certification followed by the suspect himself. Later, PW9 wrote his and appended his signature below it, then after satisfying himself that everything was ok, he returned and handed over the suspect to his superior boss being in good health condition together with the suspect's cautioned statement to him. Moreover, PW9 managed to identify the third suspect Ally Khalid Tagalile in the dock as the third accused person. Likewise, PW9 identified the cautioned statement he alleged to have recorded from the third accused person on 20.12.2014 and after doing so, PW9 prayed that the said statement be admitted by the court as an exhibit. 39 However, his prayer was not granted because after conducting a trial within a trial following the third accused's objection that he never made the said statement, the court found that there were pressing reasons for it to dismiss PW9's prayer and reject to admit that document. Among such reasons, were that first, PW9 who testified as PW1 in a trial within a trial, failed to prove that the signature appearing on the alleged cautioned statement was of the third accused person, secondly, the certification part of the said cautioned statement does not bear the suspect's signature which is contrary to the mandatory requirement of section 58 (6) (a), CPA and the third reason which contributed much in throwing away the said witness's prayer, was that the third accused person successfully proved to the court that he was neither at Singida, nor at Dar es Salaam on the diverse dates of 19th and 20th December, 2014, but was at Arusha in Kisongo Prison Remand following his indictment on the charges of murder and attempted murder for which he was jointly charged with other accused persons and arraigned before the subordinate court of Arusha Resident Magistrate's Court vide PI No. 152 of 2014. His reservation on those facts was not backed up by the mere words, as he successfully tendered before the court two legal documents to wit: The Charge Sheet and the Court Proceedings bearing the same name of 40 the above-named subordinate court and the case number, which documents were admitted collectively by the court (in a trial within a trial) as Exhibits DAK1 and DAK2 respectively. After rejection of that cautioned statement, PW9 further testified that later on he was instructed by his superior boss to communicate with people of Arusha so that the third accused person who was talking about transportation of bombs from Arusha, could be conveyed thereto and that after two days the said accused person was transported to Arusha. However, it was the testimony of PW9 that when the said suspect was returned back to Dar es Salaam, he was outside the country for further studies. He continued to testify that in the course of conducting investigation, he noted that the third accused person had known the first accused because the two were living together at Arusha. He also noted that the third accused was instructed by his leader one Yahaya Hassan Hela @Sensei to transport four (4) bombs to Mwanza in 2014. He added that his testimony regarding those facts, is according to the cautioned statement made by the third accused person before him. He also, testified that according to the said accused statement, the two bombs were intended to assault the retired Prime Minister Hon. Mizengo Kayanza Peter Pinda and the religious leader Cardinal Polycap Pengo. 41 PW9 further testified that in his investigation, he noted that the planned assaults were intended to cause death of persons, injuries, destruction of properties, state of panic in the society and breach of peace within the society. To the first accused person who testified as DW1, his defence was that all the allegations against him are not true as he did not commit the charged offences. To support his stance on such denial, DW1 testified that before being arrested on 13.08.2014, he was working with Zantel Company as an Internal Auditor and his residence was Pugu, Bangulo at Ilala District in Dar es Salaam Region. On 13.08.2014 he was arrested by the police at 1600 hours when he was at his work place. Then the police told the CFO (Chief Financial Officer) who was his superior boss, that they wanted to take him to the Head Quarters of Criminal Investigation Department for interrogation in connection with the allegations of committing terrorist acts, but when he asked them to allow his company lawyer to accompany him and attend the interrogation, they refused. Also, instead of taking him to their Head Quarters for interrogation, the arresting police officers conveyed him to Mikocheni area in Block 268 building commonly known as “The Base Area” and began to torture him to the extent of sustaining injuries whilst inquiring from him if he knew 42 the persons like Sheikh Issa Ponda, the leader of Uamsho group, Farid Hadi Ahmed, Mselem Ally and other leaders of institutions like Tampro all of whom he denied to have known. When the torturing persisted for some time, DW1 fainted and later he woke up only to find his mobile phones had been taken by the police officers. Thereafter, he was taken to his premises for the process of conducting search. At that time, he was in bad health condition because of torture to the extent that he could not be able to walk properly and he was hand cuffed. At his home, he found more than thirty police officers. Before conducting search, the police sent one of his elder brother's sons to go and call his street leader who soon thereafter arrived and introduced herself to the police officers as "Mama Rahma” That, the police began to search his house one room after another in presence of the above named ten cell leader and DWl's first wife until they finished at 0100 hours without finding anything. However, the said police officers took some of his personal items like a brand-new laptop make HP Pro book, Academic certificates from O' Level up to College; his travelling passport, switch engine, car 43 registration card of the vehicle make Toyota Lucida, T650, two landed property files enclosed with Certificates of Right of Occupancy which involved four (4) title deeds. They also took from him his MBAA Identity Card, two mobile phones; one make Samsung S Note with Zantel card which had airtime of Tshs. 233,000/=; two, a Nokia and Zantel modem with sim card number 0778 080 065 which had airtime of Tshs. 197,000/=. Those items have not been handed back to DW1 up to the moment he was testifying before the court. After the search process, he was conveyed to the Base area whereafter he began to be taken to different places like Kilwa road, Base area then to Stakishari Police Station. Concerning the allegations that he escaped from police custody on 13.08.2014, DW1 disputed them arguing that based on the health condition he had due to tortures inflicted upon him, his premises environment and the number of police officers whom he was under custody of, it could not be possible for him to escape from such lawful custody. Apart from that, DW1 contended it is not true that the police officers conducted another search at his farm on 04.12.2014 because on that time he was under police restraint at Stakishari Police Station. 44 He also challenged the evidence of prosecution witnesses who claimed that his farm was searched on 04.12.2014 arguing that while some of them stated that it was conducted on that date from 0900 to 1200 hours at Pugu, Bangulo area, some said it was conducted at Ulongoni area while others said the said search was conducted at Chanika Bangulo. Also, when shown Exhibit P4 for him to identify it, DW1 identified it by his signature, but disputed to have participated in the search conducted at Pugu, Bangulo on 04.12.2014 arguing that on that date he was under restraint at Stakishari Police Station where he was slapped and threatened to be taken back to the base area should he refuse to sign that document; that is why he decided to sign it due to fear of being tortured again. Concerning the claims that the alleged two hand grenades were found in his farm located at Pugu, Bangulo area, DW1 said that is not true because his landed properties are only those whose certificates of occupancy had been taken by the police on 03.12.2014 and the alleged farm of Pugu, Bangulo is not among those properties; hence, not his. DW1 also challenged the testimony of PW5 who claimed to be the street leader of the Pugu, Bangulo where DW1 was residing arguing that such prosecution witness did not tell truth as he is not the leader of that 45 street; the truth is that his leader was Mama Rahma who does not possess the knowledge about explosives like PW5. To show that PW5 was not a trustful witness, DW1 said first, apart from claiming to have known the family members of DW1, during cross examination PW5 failed to identify his family members, instead he said they were identified to him by the police officers. Secondly, during cross examination PW5 failed to identify the streets surrounding DWl's street. Thirdly, when cross examined by DWl's advocate, the said prosecution witness failed to be certain whether there is a street called, "Bangulo kwa Ndete” not only that, but also DW1 said all persons whom PW5 mentioned and claimed to be his neighbours, are not his; for example, PW5 mentioned the name of Mpoto which resembles to that of the country's popular artist, but that person is not his neighbour which also indicates that such witness was not DWl's street leader. That apart, DW1 testified that none of his street leaders participated in the search alleged to have been conducted in his farm on 04.12.2014. Also, DW1 contended that among the witnesses who testified before the court for the prosecution side, none of them claimed to be a leader of the farm purported to be his. 46 Not only that, but also DW1 testified that the Bangulo CCM residents were not summoned to testify that the said farm belongs to him, nor did any of the prosecution witnesses tendered a title deed to prove his ownership of that farm; even Exhibit P4 does not show that the search was conducted in the farm belonging to him. Furthermore, upon being shown Exhibit P6, DW1 said that such document does not contain his statement, nor does he know the names of persons mentioned at page 3 of that document including one Yahaya Hassan Hela @Sensei and he was not among those who convened a meeting at Bondeni Mosque in Arusha. As if that is not enough, DW1 testified that it is not true that he convened a meeting at Bondeni Mosque, Arusha with those persons to discuss about slaughtering issues between Muslim and Christians and planning to attack and assault two leaders namely Cardinal Pengo and the former Prime Minister Hon. Mizengo Kayanza Peter Pinda, are not true because he did not have a meeting with those people. Nor did he provide some advice about how to fulfil that evil mission and provide some money to one Yahaya Hassan Hela @Sensei for acquisition of the two hand grenades and there is no proof to that effect. Regarding the alleged two hand grenades, DW1 strongly denied to have received them from Arusha and hide them under the coconut tree log 47 outside his house at Pugu, Bangulo. He knew nothing about them; it is only when the two were brought and tendered before the court that he came to know them. Had there been a coconut tree log at his home place, the police officers who searched it would have either brought it or its picture or a sketch map of the crime scene before the court as an exhibit, but they didn't. In regards to the evidence of PW8 whose evidence shows that he conspired with his co accused to attack the former Prime Minister Hon. Mizengo Kayanza Peter Pinda for his act of sponsoring the youth group which manufacture some bricks, DW1 disputed those allegations arguing that the evidence of that witness is contradictory because according to other prosecution witnesses, the said hand grenades are normally used by soldiers who have knowledge of using them, but on his part, he does not possess such knowledge. As for the claims that he communicated with his second wife (the second accused person) and instructed her to transfer the said hand grenades from his premises to his farm at Bangulo CCM area, DW1 said that that evidence is not true because no evidence was led by the prosecution side to prove that he had made such communication with his second wife because by the time it is claimed that he communicated 48 with his second wife, he was under police custody; hence, it could be difficult for him to make such communication. DW1 also attacked the evidence of PW9 arguing that such prosecution witness was a liar and had misdirected the court when he testified that the cautioned statement which he recorded from him implicates the third accused person and is sufficient to prove that he conspired with the latter to commit the terrorist acts. He also argued that it is even not true that PW9 gave him his rights before recording the alleged cautioned statement because had he done so, his company lawyer would have been present when he was making the cautioned statement which is Exhibit P6. To wind up, DW1 said that all the three counts of Conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, Possession of property for commission of terrorist acts and provision of funds to commit terrorist acts, are far from him because he had never thought of committing any of them, or even participate in committing them. On that note, DW1 (the first accused person) urged the court to set him free, the freedom he has missed for a long time because of the false allegations. 49 Thereafter came the second accused person who testified as DW2. Like her DW1, she strongly denied all the allegations levelled against her giving several reasons as will be summarized shortly. Before assigning those reasons, DW2 told the court that she is a second wife of the first accused person. Professionally she is a teacher and her work place is at Kilakala, Morogoro Region at a school called Nane nane Secondary School where she began to work in 2006. Her husband has got two wives, including herself as the second wife. Their matrimonial home is at Pugu, Bangulo in Dar es Salaam. Secondly, she said that on 13.08.2014 she was called and informed by her brother-in-law that her husband had been arrested by the police at his work place, Zantel Head Quarters. Having learnt that, she travelled to Dar es Salaam and proceeded to her matrimonial home where she found her co wife who began to tell her about what had transpired there. From 15.08.2014 to 16.08.2014 she cooperated with her co wife to trace the whereabouts of her husband by going to several Police Stations in Dar es Salaam, including the Central Police Station and make some inquiries, but were told that their husband was not held in those stations; hence, she decided to go back to her work place. 50 However, on 06.12.2014 she received a call from the police officer of Dar es Salaam Central Police Station and asked her if she is the wife of Haruna Mussa Lugeye, the first accused person. Upon responding that question in the affirmative, the latter told her that her husband had been found and was at Dar es Salaam Central Police Station. Hence, he asked her to meet him there. Thereafter, DW2 asked for permission from her superior boss and began a trip to Dar es Salaam. She made her journey on 07.12.2014 for the purpose of following her husband and upon arrival, she went to Dar es Salaam Police Station and inquired about her husband. The police at the counter confirmed to her that her husband was there, but asked her to wait him for a moment. Soon thereafter, DW2 saw another policeman coming towards her direction and asked her if she was "Mrs Lugeye”and she replied, "Yss” then he asked her to follow him inside. Having narrated the above, DW2 began to assign reasons for her total denial about the charges she has been facing before the court. First, she said that she signed Exhibit P4 on 08.12.2014 at Dar Es Salaam Central Police Station. 51 Secondly, DW2 stated that on 07.12.2014 the police asked her some few questions about Haruna Mussa Lugeye then promised to let her go back home in the following day; so, she signed the document without knowing its contents. She remembered to have signed it on 08.12.2014. Thirdly, DW2 contended that none of prosecution witnesses testified that she conspired with the first and third accused persons to attack and assault the former Prime Minister Hon. Mizengo Kayanza Peter Pinda. Fourthly, she argued that the allegations that she cooperated with her co accused persons to possess the two-hand grenades are not true as she has never been possessing bombs. She added that even those who came and testify before this court in favour of the prosecution side, did not say that she had been in possession of bombs. Nor did any of them said that she had gone to Arusha. It was also her testimony that it is true she promised to bring her witnesses and tender documentary evidence before the court to support her defence, but her efforts to do so failed. Finally, she urged the court to find her not guilty of all the two counts she stands charged with and proceed to set her free so that she can join and take care of her children whom she has left behind for hardly ten years and one of them who was only one (1) year at the time she was arrested, is now eleven (11) years old in standard three (III). 52 On his part, the third accused person henceforth the DW3, testified that he was arrested at Singida Region on 17.12.2013 by five persons who boarded him on their vehicle and conveyed him to Arusha. Upon arrival, he was taken to a certain building where he met about fifteen people who began to humiliate and severely beat him on several parts of his body while asking him why he committed murder offences at Soweto Pitch grounds. Upon denying that accusation, some of those people began to beat him. Thereafter, he was taken to Arusha Central Police Station and put in a police lockup up until on 30.01.2014 when he was arraigned before the Resident Magistrate's Court of Arusha with other accused persons for four counts of murder and nine of manslaughter vide P.I No. 52 of 2014. That, thereafter the said case began to be adjourned for the interval of fourteen (14) days until on 06.09.2016 when it was withdrawn by Nolle Prosequi which led to discharge of some accused persons, including DW3. However, on the same date he was rearrested, boarded in the police vehicle and conveyed to Dar es Salaam and upon arrival, he was detained at Dar es Salaam Central Police Station until on 28.10.2016 when he was arraigned before the Resident Magistrate's court of Dar es Salaam at Kisutu with the first and second accused persons namely 53 Haruna Mussa Lugeye and Mwajumbe Wendu Bakari vide PI No. 8 of 2015 which involved three counts, but those in which he was jointly charged with those accused persons, were of conspiracy to commit terrorist acts and unlawful possession of two hand grenades. Thereafter, the said case began to be adjourned for several days due to incompletion of investigation until on 04.11.2022 when the committal proceedings was conducted then followed by a Preliminary hearing vide Criminal Sessions Case No. 211 of 2022 which originated from PI No. 8 of 2015. Also, in a bid to distance himself from all the allegations against him, DW3 testified that the offences of conspiracy and possession of two hand grenades of which he was charged he stands charged, are not true as he did not think about committing those unlawful acts. He also testified that in the period it is alleged that he committed those offences, he was at Singida doing his work at the industry called Singida Sunflowers oil mill until when he was arrested on 17.12.2013 and later put under restraint at Kisongo Prison Remand after been arraigned at Arusha Resident Magistrate's court. To prove that he was remanded in that prison, DW3 prayed to tender the charge sheet as well as the court proceedings of Arusha Resident's 54 Magistrate's Court which were collectively admitted by the court as Exhibit D2. Not only that, but also the third accused person testified that all the charges he has been facing before this court are false and they have not been proved by the prosecution Republic, rather they are meant to detain him in prison remand without any sufficient reasons, a fact which is also confirmed by the false evidence of PW9. It was due to those reasons that DW1 tabled before this court a humble prayer that he be set free in order that he can join his family instead of being curtailed the freedom he has missed for a long time due to false accusations. Besides, subsequent to the closure of cases by both sides, the counsel for the prosecution Republic and defence side were allowed to file their final written submissions and the court ordered both of them to file the same on or before 27th day of May, 2024 which order was complied with. A brief summary of their final submissions, is as hereunder: Starting with the prosecution counsel, it is their submission that based on the oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the documentary and physical exhibits including the cautioned statement of the first accused person and the two hand grenades which were 55 tendered and admitted into evidence as exhibits P2 and P6 respectively, the case against the above named accused persons has been proved beyond reasonable doubts. Additionally, the counsel for the prosecution Republic have been emphatically that Exhibit P6 not only contain the truthful confessional statement which tells how the first accused and his co accused persons committed terrorist acts with which they stand charged before the court, the same also implicates the third accused person. It is their further submission that even though it would be found that the alleged confessional statement lacks corroboration, still the law allows the court to ground convictions against all accused persons provided it warns itself on the danger of relying on an uncorroborated confession. They have also backup their submission by a number of cases as will be described hereunder. Generally, their case against all the accused persons herein, is based on the oral testimonies of nine (9) prosecution witnesses whose evidence has already been summarized above, and six documentary 56 and physical exhibits tendered during the hearing of the prosecution case. This is shown at page 1 of the prosecution's final written submission. Conversely, the counsel for the defence side have taken a different approach. It is their final submission that the prosecution Republic has failed completely to prove all counts against the first, second and third accused persons on the standard required by the law. It is their submission that the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses is tainted with serious doubts and the alleged cautioned statement of the first accused person is bad in law because it was procured through torture which indicates that the said accused person did not make it voluntary. Like their fellow learned friends, the defence counsel also cited a number of authorities to cement their propositions and the court will display some of them in due course. On my side, I wish to say that I have carefully gone through the respective final submissions by the counsel from both sides and I 57 wish to commend them for their well-researched job which will assist the court in determining the instant case, as per the law. Having said so, let me now determine whether the case against the first, second and third accused persons has been proved by the prosecution side beyond reasonable doubts. The cardinal principle in our criminal law and in other foreign jurisdictions which follow adversarial system, presupposes that the prosecution must prove its case against the accused person without leaving any reasonable doubts. Such legal duty can only shift to the accused person under special circumstances like where the accused raises a defence of insanity in which case he will have to prove existence thereof. (See Simon Edson @Makundi v. The Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2017(CAT at Arusha, unreported). In absence of those exceptional circumstances, the onus probandi remains with the prosecutions side. Conversely, the accused person only needs to raise some reasonable doubts on the prosecution's case. The above court's position is fortified in a number of authorities including, but not limited to the cases of Hornal v. Neuberger Products Ltd. [1956] 3 All E.R. 970, Henry H. Ilanga v. M. Manyoka [1961] E.A. 705 (C.A), Jonas Nkize versus The Republic [1992] TLR 58 213 (TZHC), Uganda v. Hussein Hassan Agade & 12 Others, Criminal Session Case No. 0001 of 2010 (High Court of Uganda at Kampala, unreported), Sophia Seif Kingazi versus The Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 273 of 2016 (unreported) and Republic of Kenya versus Jane Muthoni Mucheru and Another, High Court of Kenya, Criminal Case No. 45 of 2018 all of which I find to be persuasive. In Hornal v. Neuberger Products Ltd. (supra), Hodson, L.J, cited with approval the following passage from KENNYS OUTLINES OF CRIMINAL LAW 16th Edition, at page 416: - A larger minimum of proof is necessary to support an accusation of crime than wiil suffice when the charge is only of a civil nature...in criminal cases the burden rests upon the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ When therefore the case for the prosecution is closed after sufficient evidence has been adduced to necessitate an answer from the defence, the defence need to do no more than show that there is reasonable doubt as to the guilty of the accused”[Emphasis is mine] 59 Also, in the case of Uganda v. Hussein Hassan Agade & 12 Others (supra), it was stated that: "...hhe standard or threshold required to prove the case against the accused person is that the proof must be beyond reasonable doubt. This does not necessarily mean proofwith utmost certainty, or 100% proof Nonetheless the standard is met only when, upon considering the evidence adduced, there is high degree of probability that the accused in fact committed the offence” (See also Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] ALL ER 372 (King's Bench) [Emphasis is mine] To be in a better position, I will use the above threshold to test whether each of the three counts has been proved by the prosecution side on the required standard. In doing so, I propose to start with the third count of which the first accused stands charged alone for what is alleged to be provision of funds to commit Terrorist Acts contrary to section 4(1) (3) (i) (i) of the PTA. In that count it was alleged that Haruna Mussa Lugeye, on diverse dates between 1st day of January, 2013 and 31st December, 2013 at Arusha Region, did provide a sum of Tanzania Shillings two hundred 60 thousand (TZS 200,000/=) only to Yahaya s/o Hassan Hela @Sensei, knowing that the said funds will be used in whole in carrying out terrorist acts, to wit; acquisition of hand grenades for purposes of attacking and causing serious bodily harm to Hon. Mizengo Kayanza Peter Pinda, the then Prime Minister of the United Republic of Tanzania, an act which involves prejudice to national security and by its nature and context may reasonably be regarded as having been intended to be for the purpose of intimidating the Public within the United Republic of Tanzania. I had enough time to go through the provisions of sections 4(1) (3) (i) (i) and section 13 of the PTA. While the former provision of the law provides for definition and prohibition of terrorism acts, the latter provides for a suction to whoever is found guilty of providing funds to commit terrorist acts. In our case, there were nine (9) prosecution witnesses who came and testify before the court. However, upon scrutinizing their evidence, I have found that none of them, except PW9, testified about the offence of provision of funds to commit terrorist acts of which the first accused stands charged with alone. To PW9, it is his testimony that the first accused confessed before him that he provided Tshs. 200,000/= to one Yahaya Hassan Hela @Sensei. 61 However, it is on record that the said confessional statement was strongly repudiated by DW1 during defence hearing and the evidence of PW9 was not corroborated by PW4 who briefed him before he began to record the said accused cautioned statement. In the circumstance, I find it hard to act on that uncorroborated evidence. In their final submission, the learned State Attorneys have also submitted that it is not necessary to capture movement of funds from one person to another, but the same can also be proved by the circumstantial evidence; for instance, when the court considers the fact that the two hand grenades were transported from Arusha to Dar Es Salaam. While I agree with the learned counsel that due to the nature of the offences of terrorist acts with which the first accused and his co-accused persons are charged with, it may be difficult to get the direct proof regarding provision of funds by the first accused, with all due respect to the learned counsel, I am not prepared to accept their argument that the fact of transportation of the alleged two hand grenades can be used as circumstantial evidence to prove the fact that actually the first accused is responsible for providing some funds to commit the terrorist acts. 62 I say so because first, the said Sensei or any of the persons whose names have been mentioned in Exhibit P6 as the ones who convened a meeting at Bondeni, Arusha and agreed to contribute some funds to Sensei for him to acquire the hand grenades to be used in attacking and causing serious bodily harm to the former Prime Minister, was not arrested and jointly charged with the first accused person in connection with those allegations. Secondly, the contents of Exhibit P6 which has been relied by the prosecution Republic, reveals that the vehicle make Mitsubishi Fuso allegedly used to transport the said offensive weapons and the name of the company which owns that vehicle, together with the company directors as well as the address of that company, were well known, but no efforts were taken by the police to trace the whereabouts the said company driver or even conveying the first accused person to that company for the purpose of conducting identification parade in order to get the driver of the said car, arrest him and compound that vehicle as one of the intended prosecution exhibits. The said hand grenades, if at all might have been sent to the first accused from Arusha, could not come into his hands without there being some people who participated in transporting them and hand them over to him; those are none, but the so-called Sensei and the driver of a 63 vehicle belonging to Bucktown company which according to the contents of Exhibit P6, has its office at Arusha. All that raises serious doubts on the part of the prosecution evidence. No wonder that neither the second nor the accused persons decided not to cross examine PW9 on the issue of transportation of bombs; why? Because they were not jointly charged with the first accused person for that third count. Hence, failure by the prosecution Republic to bring the above persons either as the accomplices or as among the accused persons, makes the court to draw an adverse inference regarding the truthfulness of the confessions contained in Exhibit P6, just as proposed by the defence counsel in their final submission. Also, had it been true that DW1 (the first accused) confessed to have provided such fund to the so-called Sensei, PW9's evidence could be watertight. Unfortunately, it was strongly denied by the first accused person during defence hearing, as I have indicated above. More so, even when cross examined by one of the prosecution counsels regarding the allegations that he provided some money to the so-called Sensei, the first accused person was firm that he never provided some fund to that person. He reiterated his previous stance during defence 64 hearing. All that shows that the said accused person did not commit such terrorist act which is forbidden under section 4 of the PTA. Worse still, PW4 whose evidence reveals that before discovery of the alleged two hand grenades, the first accused surrendered to the police and confessed before him that he committed the terrorist acts, never told the court if in the course of confessing before him, the said accused person also confessed to have provided Tshs. 200,000/= to one Sensei in order to enable him acquire those two hand grenades for commission of terrorist acts. This also indicates that the allegations against the first accused person that he provided some funds to one Yahaya Hassan Hela @Sensei, are not true. Thus, based on the foregoing reasons, I am unable to be convinced by the prosecution side that their case against the first accused person in respect of the third count, has been proved beyond any reasonable doubts. It is quite clear that the evidence adduced by the prosecution Republic, be it documentary or oral evidence, has fallen short of proving all the ingredients of an offence stipulated in the first count. I would therefore, find the first accused not guilty on the third count. The remaining two counts contain the allegations of conspiracy to commit terrorist acts and possession of property for commission of terrorist acts in which all the accused persons are alleged to have 65 committed jointly and together. I will therefore, start with the first count as described above. In the course of their testimonies, PW4, PW6, PW8 and PW9 have alleged that the first accused person (DW1) confessed to have committed the terrorist acts. They have also claimed that before being searched at his premises Bangulo Street, and finally at his farm at Bangulo, CCM, the first accused person confessed before PW4 that he was in possession of hand grenades which he received from Arusha and hid them under the coconut tree log outside his house at Pugu, Bangulo. It appears that following the above alleged confessional statement, PW4 initiated the investigation by leading his investigation team to go and conduct search at the premises of the first accused on 03.12.2014. However, it appears that the efforts to capture the alleged hand grenades became elusive. The evidence of PW4 and that of the prosecution witnesses mentioned above, reveals that prior to that search, the first accused person confessed before PW4 that when he was at Tabora following his escape from police custody, he communicated with his second wife (the second accused person) and instructed her to transfer the said hand grenades from his home to his farm at Bangulo, CCM and hid them therein. It is according to that piece of information that on 04.12.2014, PW4 made some efforts to apprehend the second wife of DW1 who guided 66 the investigation team to Bangulo, CCM area and showed the police a place where she had hidden the alleged two hand grenades. Thereafter, PW8, the explosive specialist, managed to capture two hand grenades which were wrapped up in a foil paper and kept in a dark blue rubber shoe. Following such discovery of the said explosive weapons and other items used to hide them, PW4 seized them through a certificate of seizure which he signed together with the first accused person, second accused person and the independent witness who is PW5. Before this court the said hand grenades, the dark blue rubber and the seizure certificate were admitted as exhibits P2, P3 and PW4 respectively. Again, the evidence of PW9 reveals that he recorded the cautioned statement of the first accused person on 04.12.2014 and that the said accused person confessed before him that he conspired with other persons to commit the terrorist acts to wit: attacking and causing grievous bodily harm to the former Prime Minister Hon. Mizengo Kayanza Peter Pinda. Through their final submission, the counsel for the prosecution Republic were emphatic that the above oral, documentary and physical evidence has proved the ingredients of an offence of conspiracy, thus making the 67 first count to be proved against all the accused persons on the standard required by the law. To support their arguments, the said counsels have referred the court to a number of cases including, but not limited to the cases of Mattaka and Others vs Republic [1971] E.A. 495 and Michael Charles Kijangwa vs The Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2017 (unreported) which, among other things, indicated that due to the difficultness of getting a direct evidence of an agreement to conspire, conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence which gives rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. Basically, conspiracy entails an agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means. Section 12 of the Evidence Act, Cap 6 R.E. 2022 referred by the counsel for the prosecution Republic in their final submission, is to the effect that: "Whrre there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons referring to or in execution or furtherance of their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant 68 fact as against each ofthe persons believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose ofshowing that any such person was a party to it” [Emphasis is mine] From the above provisions of the law, it is imperative that to prove the offence of conspiracy, the prosecution in this case must prove, intel alia, that the first, second and third accused persons herein had conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong which is forbidden under section 4 (1) (3)(i)(i) of the PTA to wit: "...rrjjuiice to national security or public safety, and is intended to intimidate the public or a section of the public...” In the case of Republic vs Rashid Salehe Hemedi [2005] T.L.R. 279 this court through Mushi, J (as he then was) held that: "...(i) Since conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means, it is sufficient to prove that each conspirator knows that there is in existence or coming into existence of such scheme.”[Emphasis is mine] The above holding reminds us that in discharging its duty of proving a criminal offence against the accused persons charged with an offence of 69 conspiracy, the prosecution must also lead sufficient evidence to show that each of the accused persons knew that there was an existence or coming into existence of the planned terrorist acts, as described above. In addition to the above principles, in order to prove the offence of conspiracy with which the three accused persons herein are charged with, the prosecution must prove existence of the following ingredients: i. An agreement of more than one person or between conspirators to do an unlawful act or to do lawful act by unlawful means; ii. There must be a willful agreement and; Hi. There must be the intent to have a particular offence committed. In the case of Freeman Aikael Mbowe and Others versus Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2020 [2021] TZHC 3705 (25th June 2021 Tanzlii), this court emphasized that all the above ingredients regarding the offence of conspiracy, must be proved. In their efforts to discharge that legal duty, the counsel for the prosecution Republic have submitted that the prosecution side has proven the offence of conspiracy against all the three accused persons based on the oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as well as 70 the physical and documentary evidence which were produced as exhibits. The learned counsel for the prosecution Republic have further submitted that the physical evidence which is Exhibit P2 (two hand grenades), the documentary evidence which is Exhibit P6 (the cautioned statement of the first accused person) together with the oral evidence of PW4, PW8 and PW9, is sufficient evidence to show that the three accused persons conspired to commit the terrorist acts to wit: attacking the former Prime Minister Hon. Mizengo Kayanza Peter Pinda by using bombs which they received from Yahaya Hassan Hela @Sensei. Having squarely gone through the evidence of the above three prosecution witnesses, I have failed to find out any piece of evidence from them which shows that the first accused person confessed before any of them that on the diverse dates between 1st May, 2013 and 4th December, 2014 in various places between Dar es Salaam and Arusha Regions jointly and together with other persons not in court, he conspired with his co accused persons namely Mwajumbe Wendu Bakari (second accused) and Ally Khalid Tagalile (third accused) to commit an offence of attacking and causing serious bodily harm to Hon. Mizengo Kayanza Peter Pinda, the retired Prime Minister. This is because although PW8 seems to have testified that after the search process on 71 04.12.2014 at Bangulo, CCM the first accused upon been probed by PW4 uttered some confessional statement on how he planned to commit the terrorist acts and the assigned some reasons for doing so, neither PW4 nor PW6 corroborated that piece of evidence which tells that what PW8 said on that aspect was nothing, but false. As if that is not enough, I have also observed that during cross examination, none of the prosecution attorneys probed that accused person about the allegations of conspiring with either the second or the third accused person, but they concentrated on asking him if he used to know the names of other persons mentioned in Exhibit P6 and the leaders of Bondeni Secondary school and Mosque which are at Arusha. This also water downs the credibility of those prosecution witnesses. Regarding Exhibits P2 and P6, my careful examination of the evidence on record reveals that such evidence is tainted with a lot of discrepancies to the extent that it becomes difficult for the court to rely on them and ground convictions against the accused persons herein. At this stage, I wish to reserve my observation and findings regarding exhibit P2 and propose to deal with Exhibit P6. In their final written submission, the counsel for the prosecution Republic have discussed in detail about the confessional statement contained in the cautioned statement of the first accused person and concluded that the same 72 contains nothing, but the truth regarding the manner in which the first accused conspired with other persons, including the second and the third accused persons to commit the terrorist acts, as described in the first count. To cement their propositions, they have cited the case of Michael Mgowole and Another vs The Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 205 of 2017, Court of Appeal (unreported) which intel alia, outlines the ways to be used by the court in ascertaining whether the cautioned statement contains the true confessional statements. However, I am unable to accept their invitation that the cautioned statement under scrutiny can be relied upon by the court to ground convictions against the said accused persons. I have a number of reasons to fortify my standing; One, looking at the evidence of PW4 which is also corroborated by that of PW9, it appears plainly that PW4 was the first police officer to whom the first accused person confessed to have committed the offences of terrorism which include conspiracy and possession of bombs which he claimed to have received from Yahaya Hassan Hela @Sensei of Arusha. Also, the evidence of PW4 shows that before conducting search and discovering the two hand grenades, the first accused person told him that when he was at Tabora, where he had fled to after escaping from police custody, he communicated with the second accused, his second 73 wife and instructed her to transfer those bombs from his house at Pugu, Bangulo and hide them in his farm located near Pugu, Bangulo CCM in Ilala District of Dar es Salaam. In my view, all those were confessional statements of the suspect which was made before a police officer, if we have to assume so. However, no efforts were taken by PW4 to reduce such important information into writing. Instead, he took the first accused person and went with him to his house, then to his farm to conduct searches. That was wrong; the law is well settled that a confession made before a police officer, as opposed to the one made before a civilian, must be reduced into writing for it to be relevant and capable of being relied upon. That position is fortified in the provisions of section 57 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Cap 20 R.E. 2022 (the CPA); also see the case of Republic vs Ally Othman Rashid & Others (Criminal Session Case 212 of 2022) [2024] TZHC 1924 (9 May 2024 Tanzlii) which also emphasizes on the need to reduce the suspect's confessional statement made before a police officer into writing. Again, in the case of Michael Mgowole (supra) the Court of Appeal referred to its previous decision in Ibrahim Yusuph Calist @Bonge and Three Others vs R., Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 2011 (unreported) in which it restated the position that information leading to 74 discovery of subject matter of the offence serves as an assurance on the truthfulness of facts contained in confessional statements. However, to be more specific, the Court outlined some ways which the court can use to determine whether or not what is contained in a particular statement is true. These include the following: - "...Hstt, if the confession leads to the discovery of some other incriminating evidence. Second, if the confession contains a detailed elaborate relevant and thorough account of the crime in question, that no other person would have known such details but the maker. Third, since it is part of the prosecution case, it must be coherent and consistent with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses, and evidence generally...especially with regard to the central story (and not in every detail) and the chronology of events. And lastly, the facts narrated in the confession; must be plausible ”'. [the underlining is mine] As far as the first count is concern, I am of the view that the truthfulness of the confessional statement contained in exhibit P6, can be determined by using the second, third and fourth ways as outlined above. The nagging question is whether the confessional statement contained in exhibit P6 has all the features stipulated in the second, third and fourth ways above. 75 On my part, I would answer such question in the negative. I am of that position because the confessional statement contained in that document which I had enough time to examine, does not contain a detailed elaborate relevant and thorough account of the crime of Conspiracy to commit terrorist acts c/s 4(1), (3)(i)(i) and 27(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act No. 21 of 2002 (the PTA) due to the following reasons: - First, the statement does not contain the names of the second and third accused persons as among persons who are alleged to have convened a meeting at Bondeni Mosque in Arusha and planned how they could attack and cause serious bodily harm to the said former Prime Minister. This means the important element of conspiracy which is an agreement of more than one person or between conspirators to do an unlawful act or to do lawful act by unlawful means is missing! Secondly, the said statement falls short of the mandatory requirement stated in Michael Mgowole's case (supra) as it is not coherent and consistent with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses and evidence generally particularly the one adduced by PW4, PW8 and PW9 in relation to the subject matter described in the first count which is conspiracy. This is because the statement contained in exhibit P6 is at variance with the testimony of PW4, PW8 and PW9 who just claimed that the accused 76 persons were suspected to have committed the terrorist offences including conspiracy, but without leading any evidence to show how the first accused conspired with the second and third accused persons to commit such serious criminal offence. Also, the said statement does not contain a chronological flow of events relating to commission of the offence of conspiracy. For instance, it does not show when and how the accused persons herein together with other persons mentioned in that document, met or even communicated and planned to attack the former Prime Minister by using hand grenades. Nor does it show when and how the three accused persons met in Dar es Salaam and conspired to commit such criminal offence, as it is alleged in the particulars of the first count. Finally, another way to determine if what is contained in a confessional statement is true or not, is that the statement must be plausible. This aspect need not detain me much because given a number of flaws described above, it is obvious that the statement contained in exhibit P6 is not plausible at all. On this, I may also add that the said statement is not plausible because it falls short of describing names of the second and third accused persons as among those who participated in the meeting convened at 77 Bondeni Mosque, Arusha where it is alleged that the agreement to attack and assault the former Prime Minister was made. More so, the confessional statement contained in exhibit P6 show that apart from planning to attack and cause serious bodily harm to the former Prime Minister, the first accused together with other persons who are not party to the case at hand, also conspired to assault a religious leader who is Cardinal Polycap Pengo for what is alleged to be the religious conflict about slaughtering animals which ensued between Muslims and Christians at Arusha Region in the year 2013. Surprisingly, neither the first accused, nor his co accused persons were charged with the offence of conspiring to attack and cause serious bodily harm that religious leader by using hand grenades. This leaves a lot to be desired because had it been true the three also conspired to attack the former Prime Minister and that religious leader, then no doubt the particulars of the offence in the first and other two counts would have contained such serious allegations. Why the drafters of the charge sheet in this case omitted to make such crucial insertion? remains to be unanswered question on the part of the prosecution side which in turn prompts me to do nothing, but give the benefits of doubts to all the accused persons as far as the allegations of conspiracy are concerned. 78 Still on the alleged confessional statements of the first accused person in Exhibit P6, I also find it apt to test the credibility of such documentary evidence in light with the final submissions of learned counsel for both parties and other principles of law as can been grasped from various case laws. In their final submissions, the prosecution attorneys have argued that Exhibit P6 reveals that the first accused confessed to have had meetings with his fellow culprits who are still at large and the third accused inclusive. To the contrary, it is the argument of the defence counsel that Exhibit P6 does not depict any mention of the second and third accused persons as among persons who convened and participated in the meeting holden at Bondeni, Arusha. On my part, having gone through the said exhibit I am in line with the submission of the defence counsel because it is obvious that such document does not show if the first accused person confessed before PW9 that the second and third accused persons were among the persons whom he met with either at Arusha or Dar es Salaam and convened a meeting of planning how to attack and cause serious bodily harm to the former Prime Minister of this country. Hence, I may conclude that the prosecution argument that the third accused person was implicated by the first is far from being accepted by this court. 79 Likewise, since there is no proof of such alleged fact, so too, the principle stated in the case of Daktari Jumanne vs The Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 602 of 2021 cited by the prosecution counsel, cannot be applied by the court to find that failure by the defence counsel to cross examine PW9 regarding that fact is tantamount to acceptance of what is contained in Exhibit P6. That apart, the counsel for the prosecution Republic have cited the provisions of section 33 (2) of the Evidence Act, Cap 6 R.E. 2019 which requires corroboration in order to convict a co-accused person and they have also relied on the case of Pascal Kitigwa vs Republic [1994] T.L.R. 65 in which the Court of Appeal held that: “COrrroOorttive evidence may be circumstantial and may as well come from the words or conduct of the accused, and may as well also corroborate evidence of a co-accused.” Based on the above position of the law, the said learned counsel have submitted that since the cautioned statement of the first accused person (Exhibit P6) contains the detailed content related to the offences charged, it is their view that what is contained therein is nothing, but true. As I have alluded earlier, the alleged confessional statements in Exhibit P6 contains nothing, but false statement. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the prosecution invitation at all. 80 The above takes me to another argument by the prosecution counsel that even if the corroborative evidence is not available, still the court can convict the maker of Exhibit P6 without corroborative evidence as long as it is satisfied that the confession contained therein is nothing, but true and warns itself on the dangers of convicting the accused persons solely on their uncorroborated confessions. They have relied on the case of Flano Alphonce Masalu @ and 4 Others vs Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 366, CAT to bolster their proposition. On the adversary side, the defence counsel's argument is that since the alleged confession lacks corroboration, the court will be justified to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution on their failure to call independent witnesses to corroborate the accusations that the first accused person conspired with other people including the second and third accused persons with a view to plan how they could attack and assault the above named retired Prime Minister. They have also argued that the alleged confession cannot be safely relied by the court to convict the accused persons herein because it had been retracted by the first accused person at the hearing of the prosecution case and during defence hearing, citing the case of Ali Salehe Msutu vs Republic [1980] T.L.R. 1 to cement their argument. 81 The principle stated in the case of Flano Alphonce Masalu @ and 4 Others vs Republic (supra) is qualified in the sense that for it to be applicable in a case where the alleged confession is uncorroborated, the court must be satisfied that the confession is nothing, but true and it must also warn itself on the dangers of convicting the accused persons solely on their uncorroborated confessions. That is the position of the law as rightly pointed out by the prosecution counsel. However, the question here is whether the alleged confession in Exhibit P6 can safely be relied upon by the court to ground convictions against the first accused person and his co-accused persons. I have earlier on discussed and reasoned in detail as to why the court has refrained from accepting the prosecution argument that Exhibit P6 contains nothing, but true confessional statements. Nonetheless, I may add, as rightly argued by the defence counsel, that even the oral evidence of PW4, PW8 and PW9 does not corroborate the confessional statements contained in Exhibit P6 as far as the offence of conspiracy is concerned. The evidence of PW4 though depicts that the first accused confessed before him to have committed the terrorist acts, was not reduced into writing; same applies to the evidence of PW8 whose evidence reveals that after discovery of the two hand grenades at Bangulo CCM, the first accused confessed to have conspired with other 82 persons to attack and cause serious bodily harm to the former Prime Minister, as it was neither corroborated by PW4, nor by PW5 and PW6 who also witnessed search conducted on 04.12.2014. Also, the evidence of PW9 is doubtful because he lied to the court by claiming that he recorded the cautioned statement of the third accused person while in actual sense, he did not, that is why his prayer to have the said document admitted into evidence, was dismissed. In the circumstance, the evidence of such witness cannot be accorded weight anyhow. Again, the evidence of PW4, PW6 and PW8 who are members of the Tanzania Police Force which seems to implicate the first accused for confessing to them that he committed the terrorist acts including, but not limited to conspiracy, is in my view weak as the circumstances in which the alleged confession was made, depicts that the first accused confessed before them in absence of any independent witness (s). He was therefore, not a free agent. In the case of Republic vs Zahaq Rashid Ngai @Mtu Mzima and 3 Others (Criminal Sessions No. 23 of 2023) [2024] TZHC 5901 (4 June 2024 TANZLII) held that: 83 "...for the oral confession to be relied upon, one the suspect must be a free agent, and two, there must be corroborative independent evidence” I am persuaded to follow the above position of the law and I find it to suit the circumstances of the present case because the alleged oral confessions before PW4, PW6 and PW8, if we have to assume that they were so made, were made in absence of independent witness. The evidence of PW5 who has been described as the independent witness, does not corroborate the evidence of those three prosecution witnesses at all. Hence, based on the above reasons, it is my finding that the alleged oral confessions cannot be relied upon by the court to ground convictions against the accused persons herein. Finally, there are two sub issues which I think should also form part of this judgment before I pen off. First, whether the second and third accused persons knew about the planned conspiracy either in Dar es Salaam or Arusha, as it is alleged in the particulars of the first count and the second is whether the alleged prosecution circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove the offence of conspiracy. 84 Starting with the first sub issue, despite claiming in their final submissions that the second and third accused persons conspired with the first accused to commit the terrorist acts, none of the prosecution witnesses, be it in the course of testifying before the court or during cross examination, led any sufficient evidence to show that the said accused persons knew about the planned terrorist acts on diverse dates at Dar es Salaam and Arusha. Nor did any of them tendered documentary evidence regarding mobile communications between the first accused and his co-accused given the fact that the three accused persons were residing at different places. Worse still, in their testimonies, the second and third accused persons strongly denied to have been present at the alleged scenes of crimes on the dates and years mentioned in the charge sheet relating to this case. While the second accused testified that she had been at Morogoro during that time and had gone to Dar es Salaam to find her husband who had been arrested and his whereabouts concealed, the third accused person successfully led evidence to show that during that time he was at Singida until on 17.12.2013 when he was arrested by the police who conveyed him to Arusha where he was charged with four counts of murder and nine of manslaughter and remanded at Kisongo Prison in Arusha Region. 85 All that indicates that the said accused persons knew nothing about the alleged unlawful meetings at Dar es Salaam and Arusha. Hence, the first sub issue is answered in the negative. In the circumstance, it cannot be concluded that the three accused persons herein conspired to attack and cause serious bodily harm to Hon. Mizengo Kayanza Peter Pinda. As to whether the alleged prosecution circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove the offence of conspiracy, there is a host of authorities in our country on that aspect which have provided a threshold for such kind of evidence to be used in proving various offences including the one charged in the first count. For instance, in the case of Bahati Makeja vs Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 118 of 2006 (Tanzlii), the Court of Appeal held inter alia, that: "...AH in all, a survey of decided cases on the issue in this country and outside jurisdiction establishes that such evidence must satisfy these tests: (1) the circumstances from which an inference ofguilty is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established beyond a reasonable doubt; 86 (2) those circumstances should be of a definite or conclusive tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilty of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within al human probability the crime was committed by the accused and no one else, and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain a conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and should be inconsistent with his innocence” Also, in the case of Rashidi Hemedi (supra) this court held, inter alia that: "...(H) The nature of the evidence that is commonly used by the courts to find whether or not accused committed the offence of conspiracy is purely circumstantial; (Hi) Circumstantial evidence must be such as to produce moral certainty to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.”[Emphasis is mine] Guided by the above principles of law as stated in the above cases, just to mention a few, I am of the strong opinion that the alleged 87 circumstantial prosecution evidence which basically stems from the evidence of PW4, PW6, PW8, PW9 and Exhibit P6, falls short of meeting the above four tests to the extent of making this court to conclude that the said evidence is such as to produce moral certainty to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. I would therefore, answer the second sub issue in the negative as well. From the above deliberation and foregoing reasons, I am constrained to find that the prosecution Republic has failed to discharge their legal duty of proving the first count beyond any reasonable doubts. I therefore, give all the three accused persons the benefit of doubts left behind by the prosecution side and proceed to find each of them not guilty on the first count too. Next for my determination before I windup, is whether the second count of Possession of Property for commission of terrorist acts c/s 4 (1) (3) (i) (i) and section 15 (b) of the PTA has been proved by the prosecution side on the required standard. Before I answer that crucial issue, I should first of all make some highlights on the ingredients of the offence of Possession of Property for commission of terrorist acts the three accused persons have been indicted with. 88 Section 15 (b) of the PTA provides that: “Use ofproperty for commission ofterrorist act 15. Every person who- (a),,,N/A (b) possesses property intending that it be used or knowing that it will be used, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, for the purpose of committing or facilitating the commission of a terrorist act, commits an offence and shall on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term not less than fifteen years and not more twenty years” In my understating regarding the above provisions of law, for the offence of possession of property for commission of terrorist act(s) to be established, the following ingredients must be proved: - i. The suspect/accused must have been found in possession of the property whose definition has been provided under section 3 of the PTA, ii. The accused must have either intended that such property be used or he must have known that it will be used, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, for the purpose of committing or facilitating the commission of a terrorist act(s). 89 From the foundation I have built above, I am now in a good position to determine whether the above ingredients which constitute the offence of Possession of Property for commission of terrorist acts, have been proved by the prosecution side on the required standard. Starting with the first ingredient, section 3 of the PTA defines the word Property'to mean, "...nny property and any assets of every description ...movable or immovable, tangible or intangible.. ”' The properties mentioned in the second count are the two hand grenades which in my considered opinion, contain almost all the features stipulated under section 3 of the PTA above; hence, there is no doubt that they fall within the meaning of the word Property'as defined by the foregoing provision of the law. The question which comes to the focus is whether the first, second and third accused persons herein were found in possession of two offensive hand grenades. The word Poseession'has not been defined under the provisions of the PTA; however, under section 5 of the Penal Code, such word has been defined to mean: 5. "posssssion" "be in possession of" or "hiave in possession" includes- (a) ,,,N/A 90 (b) if there are two or more persons and any one or more of them with the knowledge and consent of the rest has or have anything in his or their custody or possession, it shall be deemed and taken to be in the custody and possession of each and all ofthem...” Reverting back to the case at hand, in their final submissions, the learned prosecution counsels have emphatically argued that the relevant evidence which proves the second count, include the oral testimonies of PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7 and PW8 together the seized offensive weapons (Exhibit P2 as well as the certificate of seizure (Exhibit P4). Their learned friends from the defence have, however, strongly attacked that evidence arguing that the prosecution evidence has failed to prove that the three accused persons herein were jointly and together found in possession of two hand grenades at Mwembe Yanga area within Temeke District and Bangulo CCM area within Ilala District in Dar es Salaam as it is alleged in the particulars of the second count. The defences counsels have also contended that there is no evidence that the farm in which the two offensive weapons were recovered, belongs to the first and second accused persons. Also, the neighbours of those who border the said farm were not called to testify before the court. 91 In my view, the defence counsels have had a point in their reservations regarding the prosecution evidence. This is because it is true that there is no visible evidence to show that the first, second and third accused persons, were jointly and together found in possession of two offensive hand grenades on the dates and places mentioned in the second count. Before I go further, I wish to pause and propose to reproduce the relevant part of the particulars of the offence in the second count, just for ease of reference and brief discussion, as hereunder: "...ND COUNT FOR ALL ACCUSED PERSONS STATEMENT OF THE OFFENCE POSSESSION OF PROPERTY FOR COMMISSION OF TERRORIST ACTS; Contrary to section 4(1), (3)(i)(ii) and 15(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, No. 21 of2002. PARTICULARS OF THE OFFENCE HARUNA MUSSA LUGEYE, MWAJUMBE WENDU BAKARI and ALLY KHALID TAGALILE, on (sic) divers dates between 1st May, 2013 and 4th December, 2014, at Mwembe Yanga area within Temeke and Bangulo CCM area within Ilala District in Dar es Salaam Region, jointly and together, were found in possession of two offensive hand grenades, knowingly that 92 they will be directly used to facilitate the commission of terrorist act..." The above excerpt entails that the three accused persons herein were jointly and together found in possession of two hand grenades on diverse dates and places as described therein. That being the case, it could be expected to find evidence from the prosecution Republic tally with the particulars of the charge sheet as stated in the second count. However, as it has been pointed above, none of the prosecution witnesses, including PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW8, testified that the said accused persons were on diverse dates between 1st May, 2013 and 4th December, 2014, at Mwembe Yanga area within Temeke and Bangulo CCM area within Ilala District in Dar es Salaam Region, found in possession of two offensive hand grenades, knowingly that the same will be directly used to facilitate the commission of terrorist act. If any additional reasons were needed to support the above court's observation, I would then add that no documentary evidence particularly the certificate of seizure, was tendered by the prosecution Republic to show that the said accused persons were found in possession of two hand grenades at Mwembe Yanga, Temeke District in Dar es Salaam, 93 contrary to the provisions of section 38 (1) and (3) of the CPA which requires that the seizing police officer should issue a receipt to the suspect acknowledging the seizure of a thing suspected to be used in commission of an offence; see Patrick Jeremiah vs Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2006 and Selemani Abdallah & others vs Republic, Criminal Appeal no. 384 of 2008 (all unreported). Also, exhibit P4 which is the certificate of seizure alleged to be filled in at Bangulo CCM by PW4 after seizing the said two hand grenades, suffers from a number of ailments due to several reasons; one, it lacks the signatures of other independent witnesses whom PW5,PW6 and PW8 claimed to have been present at the crime scene on 04.12.2014, two; it does not bear the name and signature of the third accused person whom the particulars of the offence in the second count allege to have been jointly and together found in possession of two hand grenades with his co-accused persons at Bangulo CCM. This makes the allegations of possession of two hand grenades by the said accused persons to be false because it is obvious that the third accused wasn't at Mwembe Yanga or even at Bangulo CCM on those diverse dates. Three; instead of involving the leaders or residents of Bangulo, CCM before commencing search process on 04.12.2014, PW4 who was the investigation team leader, invited PW5 whose evidence, however, shows 94 clearly that he was not the leader or resident of Bangulo, CCM, but of Pugu, Bangulo and because of that, he failed to identify properly the place in which the said hand grenades were captured. This can be ascertained from this response from cross examination question where he seemed not to know whether the search farm was in Bangulo CCM, Bangulo Ndete or Bangulo Msikitini. That apart, the contents of Exhibit P6 which is the first accused cautioned statement, only show that the said hand grenades were received by the first accused person at Mwembe Yanga. This again reveals that what is contained in that exhibit is nothing, but false. Had it been true that the first accused confessed to have committed the second count as well, then no doubt he could have told PW9 that he received those offensive weapons with the second and third accused person which is not stated in Exhibit P6. In addition to the above, the evidence of PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW8 shows that it was on 04.12.2014 when the said two hand grenades were discovery in the farm at Bangulo CCM, the very date PW9 claimed to have recorded the cautioned statement of the first accused person. The evidence of the former prosecution witnesses depicts that the process of searching and seizing of the said offensive weapons was done and completed before 1400 hours which according to PW9 was the starting 95 time for him to record the cautioned statement of the first accused person. If that was the case, then it means that the first accused confessed to PW9 after the alleged hand grenades had already been discovered! In the circumstance, it cannot be said with certainty that the confessional statement contained in Exhibit P6 led to discovery of those offensive weapons. The only evidence which appears to have been relied upon by them, is the oral confession alleged made by the first accused before PW4 on 02.12.2014 and 03.12.2014 which is however, tainted with some procedural irregularities, as indicated above. Hence, it cannot be accorded weight and relied upon by the court in order to make the prosecution win convictions against the first, second and third accused persons. In the case of Chamuriho Kirenge @Chamuriho Julius vs The Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 597 of 2017 (CAT at Mwanza, unreported), it was observed that the appellant's confession led to discovered of the murder weapon. This means for confession leading to discovery to be reliable, the discovery of the items must be preceded by the confession. 96 The circumstances of the present case are quite different because what is alleged in the contents of Exhibit P6 to be a confession leading to discovery, was recorded after the discovery of the two hand grenades at Bangulo, CCM; not before. This means the police who conducted search in the said farm including PW4, had a previous knowledge regarding the whereabouts of those weapons which is improper. (see Mgowole's case (supra). In the circumstance, it is my considered opinion that the prosecution evidence leaves a lot to be desired concerning the alleged confession. As for the element of knowledge, the first accused person has retracted the fact that he confessed to have been in possession of the two hand grenades. He did so when PW9 prayed to tender his cautioned statement as an exhibit and during defence hearing whereby he complained to have been tortured and forced to sign Exhibit P6. In the case of Nuru Venevas and Others vs Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 431 of 2021 (Tanzlii), it was held that: “It is trite that confession evidence which has been retracted or repudiated cannot be acted upon to found conviction, and it is always desirable to look for corroboration in support of a confession which has been repudiated or retracted” 97 From the records of this matter, there is no dispute that the first accused person retracted the confession alleged to be made by him, as indicated above. This is also the case with the third accused person who repudiated a confession alleged to have been made by him on 20.12.2014 before PW9. This means the said accused persons had no knowledge about the presence of the two hand grenades in the said farm. Regarding the second accused person, first of all she has strongly denied to have signed Exhibit P4 at the scene of crime contending that she signed that document at the Central Police Station in Dar es Salaam where she went to look for the first accused person, her husband. She has also added that before appending her signature on that document, she was promised by the police that she would be released instantly if she does so. During cross examination, she said she was not threatened or tortured before signing that document, but was not given an opportunity to read the contents of Exhibit P4. The above entails that the second accused person also knew nothing about possession or presence of those offensive weapons in the said farm, who was in their control or the purpose of using them. 98 Suffice it to say that the prosecution evidence has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the three accused persons herein were jointly and together found in possession of the two hand grenades on the time and places mentioned in the particulars of the offence in the second count. Thus, based on the foregoing reasons, I also find that the second count has not been proved on the required standard and therefore, I find all the accused persons not guilty on that count. In their final submissions, the learned State Attorneys have also invited the court to find that the discrepancies pointed by the defence side were minor; hence, cannot dismantle the prosecution case and they have cited a number of authorities which I need not reproduce here, though I appreciate them. I would rather propose to refer to the case of Dickson Elia Nsamba Shapwata and Another v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 2007 (unreported) at page 7 in which while quoting with approval the authors of Sarkar, The Law of Evidence, 16th Edition, 2007 the Court of Appeal had the following to say: - "Normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence and those are always there however 99 honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do” Back to the present case, I wish to say that although there might be some normal discrepancies, the ones I have pointed herein above, cannot be skipped as they fall within the category of material discrepancies which as indicated in the above decision of the Court of Appeal, have the effect of corroding the credibility of a party's case. In other words, material discrepancies I have labelled herein above, do make the prosecution case to flop. I would therefore, find and hold that owing to the above reasons, I am of the settled view that the prosecution Republic has failed to prove their case on the standard required by the criminal law against the first, second and third accused persons namely Haruna Mussa Lugeye, Mwajumbe Wendu Bakari and Ally Khalid Tagalile in respect of the first and second counts, and against the first accused person namely Haruna Mussa Lugeye in respect of the third which the latter stands charged alone. 100 Consequently, I find all the above-named accused persons not guilty in respect of the said two counts and I acquit them. Likewise, I find the first accused person not guilty in respect of the third count and I acquit him. The said accused persons should be released from prison custody forthwith unless they are held therein for some lawful cause. Meanwhile, I direct that the Exhibit Book and the two hand grenades which were admitted as Exhibits Pi and P2 respectively, be in the custody of the Police. It is so ordered. 31.07.2024 Right of appeal is hereby fully explained to both parties. JUDGE 31.07.2024 DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 31st day of July, 2024. JUDGE 31.07.2024 101