19910610 TZHC Dar es Salaam

TIT TUE COURT-MARTI'AL A.PPEAL COURT AT DAR ES SALAAM COURT 1f.lARTIAL CRIMINAL APPEAL HO, 3 OF 1990 P, 1320 COL. HORm.ffiE R. f:IA..Ti:J'A ) APPELLA11TS P. 1628 IVft"1.J • K!TALAMA J,. SITIBUKU ) •• 0 • 0 • • • JV.OGE ADVOCATE GI.:HERAL •••. • • • ••• • • •• • •• • • • RESP01JDENT JUD GM EH T1 LUGAICTNGIRAg?, s- Oh 10 MaJ:ch, 1989 the appellants, Colo11el Raphael Martcra Horombe and Major Shi buku John Ki tel.lama, were conVicted 1:iy the General c·ol.U'Hfurtial on a charge of sfoaling o/s Ce"5,1 (I) of the Code of Service Discipline and 1-rere sentenced -'co fi vc yea:rs' imptisoru;1ent oacli. 'lho first appellant was commandant of ·liho School of Air Def e11cc at Ta.11ga whiio tho second appellant was his, deputy or, as they say, the second in command, and i·h had been allogod. that between 13 and 16 February, 1986, tho two jointly stole 2000 bags of . cement worth 'Z{0.000/=, the property of the Defence Forces. This cement was _ J ini;-:;1'10tl for o. 1;.1~ '. "-".:v· rrejeot. .1,t tho school a.rid there was undisputed cvi~nc<c -'i;hat it was duly purchased and taken from the Ta.nga cement factory. In a nutshell; tho prosecution case consisted of the claim that the appellants were concerned in the procurement of this cement, tb.a·~ it' was never delivered a~li the school and, therefore, that they stole the samo. 0·hlicr than sa;/ that the appellants denied stcalinG" tho commodi ~.}'.', ~d even tried to establish that it was not stolon· at all, wo do not intend.to go into the nicotios-of the cVidence, or tho manner in which· it was ad.dt:1.ced, as the issues addressed bcf ore us turned on more fwidamental questions involving the validity of tho trial as a whole-. Mr. Maira'.."lnd Mr. l\'Iaxa.ndo, advocates, appeared for the first and second appellants respectively while _l\'fre Ohiza, a state a~torncy, appeared for tho Judge Advocat~cnorai. Mr. ~ra took a number of gl'Otmds uhich we consictor to be of great moment, the first and paramount being that tho ool.U't-martial uhich tried the case wa.s not lawf'ullY convened in the ~once of evidence that the convenor, Lt. Gen. Tell. Kiwolu, had power to discharge the functions of a convening authority• In order to app:i:v•i.;:i.t.0 this t\l'gumont, it is necessary briefly to revert to section c.92(I) of tho Code of Service Discipline and art. 111.05 of the Defence Forces Regulations (G.N. No.258/67) which make provision for tho convcrning authority• Tho former provides for tho oonvoning of Gonern.l Courts-martial by -~he Prosid?nt and axiy military authoriticrs as raey be prescribed in tho Defence Forces Regulations and the latter provide~ ~at a cou:rt-ma:ciicl muy be convenpd ey the Pl·ectdont~ tho Chief of tho Defonce Forces, ruid such otl101' mili to.ry a.uthorities a,s tho i • Defonce Forces Coi,liid ttee mcy prescribe or appoint for that pu:rriose. lh M;l.'• 1 Mnira•s argument» there wa.s no indicc..tion tha:'c Lt ~Gen.Ki1-rciu, who is tho Chi.cf of Staff, was prescribed or a.ppoin·~od by the Defence Forces Cammi tteo to convene courts-ma.rtia.lo In rcp].y to this arguncnt, Mr. Chiza informed us ·clm:b Lt .. Gcn• IG.wolu 1tas appointed c convening a,uthori ty by tho Chief of tho Defonce Forces through a conficlcntial notice du.tad 7 November, 1988, ruid tha~ the Chief of the Dofencc Forces acted on behalf of the Defonce Forces Cor.1mitteo pursuant to tho provisions of s.15 (3) of the lfational Defence Act, 1966. In view of tho observations thn.t we will mnk:9 on thls submission, it is absolutely necessary to set out this provision, and i·~ statcst (3) Unless tho President otherwise directs, all orders and instructions -'co the Def once Forces which aro required to give effect ~o tho decisions o.nd to carry out the directions of ,,.tho· Govcrnm.cnt of . Tn.nr.;nnia, the Minister, or tho Defence Forces Cerami ttec shall be issuocl by or through tho Chio:f' of tho Defence Forces~ Mr. Chiza construcc1 this provision to moGl'l -~:.iat the powers of the ~efcnco Forces Co,ami ttoo, including the prn-rcr to n.ppoin-t n. convening authority, arc cxorcis-:- ' able by the Chief of tho Dcfencc Forces. To use his exact words, "tho Chief of the Defonce Forces is gi vcn poucr fo oot on behalf of the Defence Forces Committee to give orders or instructions such as to appoint a convening tmthori ty•" Mr. lll'lira conceded that tho Chief of the Defence Forces did, indeed, purpo1•t to appoinJc; Ltc Gcn.IG.uelu a convening o.utliori ·ty, but he submi ttod that -;;110 Chief of' the Defonce Forces lwd no pOirnr to do so• ...... /3 J : 3 : if:c wish fo obi:rnrvo, in tho first place, Jli.1.ll~·t ·i.110 power to co1wone a. cour-'trmn.rtinl is s·t~tutory power and, tb.n.·b boi;:ig tho on.so, this power iG a:i:crcisa.ble 01~ by tho person 01· po:r::,0110 on whom it is co11f'crrocJ. b'J st.::-:'mto, u11lcss a. contr.::-..ry intondmon·t o~ be found or inf'or:rod, In view of soctio11 C.i.92(1) and art 111,.05 ·i;ho power is conferred on ·i;hc Prcfsiden-t1 tlic Chief of the Dofonco Forces and such other mili-'.;oxy authori tics no ;n03' bo proscribed or ~ppoin·bod by the Defence Forces Cornmi ttoo"' The question to be· a.nsworcd is whether a. contrm-y i;.1tc;.1.drncnt is to be :fot..md in those provioiOi.lG or in s. 15 (3) ci tod -'Go UG by Mr., Chizn... Wo t.l1ink1 with rospcc·i;, ·llin:i; in nci thcr Cf'.,SO is suoh contrary intondmcnt to "be found n.nd we believe tlu:::l; Mr. Chiza's a.pprocia.tion of s. 15 (3) is oi'Tm.-~oous., It is not con~co·t -bo sey, OS subrni•t·tod by -'i;hc learned s·tr.:to n/1/cornoy, -'chct s,.15 (.~) gives power to tho Chief of ·;;he :Oofencc Forces ·to- ,'.10Jli on bcho.lf of Jliho Defonce Forces Connni-'i;tco (or, for that mc.·~·:;0r, tho Government or the Minis-tor). The oorrco·~ in.forpretn.tion1 in our v.i.ow, is thn:t power is :3i vcn -to tho Chief' of the Dc:Zc11.co Forces to iss-u." orders nnd instruc-'cio~1s necessary for gi vi11e off cc-'-; :~o tho dccision;J ~d carrying out -'d1e diroc·;;ions of tho Government, tho Minister or the Defence Forces Comrnittoc. To put it in nnothor ·we~, ·i:hc power to mn.kr r\.ccisions end to is □uc c1.ircc'l;ions romcins vested in ·llic Government, ·the Minister 2nd the Defonce Forces Committco while tho i,aplomontn.tion of ·;;JJ.oso decisions nnd dirco·tions is loft to -'&.lo Chief of -'ii.ho Dof onoc Forces~ A: ,sUJ1ri.ng~ therefore, Ji;l)_c,-~ J.;ho n.ppointmcnt · of a oonvm:Jing oothori ty is n. tta .:cision" n.s oontcmpl~tod under s. 15 (3) 1 we /JXe of J.;;10 dofi,,~ -i-~ ~...: --- ·'·'·-·'· -;;ho pm-ror (nnd duty) o:f ·the Chief of tho Dofenoc Foroos is limi tod to imi:; 1 ~.:.-::.;.;.-:;::.~ig thn.t decision otter it hc.s .been mndc 1:zy' the Def once ForcoE Coi.-1;,i.:_ ~•.JO:, but not to ran.kc ·tho decision (i1 o, to mclcc the r.,ppointmcnt) itself. It follows thn.-t -'Gb.o purported exorcise of power by ·i;hc Chief of the Do:2once I'.:-rcos in tho cirour:1s·;:;011ccs proson-tcd by Mr. Cltlzc~ ifO-S erroneous end unln:ir.ful., On tho : -'-11sr lrn.nd., we think i-'i; is tho power o:l ·i;hc Chi of of the 1}::f ::100 lforc-,s under s, 15(3) 1-rhioh may be C!X:eroiscd by cz,y- other person if the P-~osidont so 6.irocts. Al:thoL1gb. n. contrn.ry in-i;ondmcnt is thus not "i;o bo :folll1d in section c.92(1), CJ:-'li m.05 or s.15(3), wo novorthclcss went fLu•-~b.cr to consider · whether such intcndmcnt could be f . . ,mri ,.,, sc}·Therc~ In tltl.s co11noctio11, .-ro wish ·i;o drc:.lT c1.·i;-~onU011 to ·l;hc provisions of u,.. ~.. l_.14 (J.) of the Dcfcnoo "' --•.\. ~·, ' 4 I ( 1) Whon by thG Defonce _Forces Rogr:.l::::~io:ns ru-iy p01rnr or jLi.risdiction is ·gi von to, mm ~1Y net or tlung is ·co bG d1onc by, to _or befoi'c a.Yl,)t officer or man, that power or juxisc.liction may be ru:orcisod by, anc1. that ect or -~lri.11(; mc:w be done by, to or bo:foro rui,y other office:.: or fil0..1.'1 for the time boi;1t,· aut.l1orisecl in that 7:ic:.:~nlf ~JJ t:iG Defonce Forces Rogu.12.:cions or accorc:irlf,; ·co tb.o custoi.1 of the serv"icu. lfc have carof'l-'1}.:r gone ·'Ghrough tho two vol1..,,.;-i1co of the Dof cnco Forces Regulations~ i, o. G.N V No. 258/67- cJ.1.d G.E. 1-:0.52/68, but ill :.1.Gitl10r of thcr:1 have we boon a'Jlc to discover cl.i\'/ p:•o·ilisio!1 whic!.1 dolegn/i;os to aJ1J" o-lihCl"' officer the pouc:r o:;;:crcir--1-1,lc t.mclcr o.,r-~.ili.O5- lfo thinlc, 011 t:.1c other hn.1.10. 1 JJJ.at it is 2. m~"·~·~o:r subject to proof ·iF ov"io.cnoc whdhcr -i;].wro czists in ·fao Tanzani2. mili tc:ry sorvico a cu.sto;:i ·1,.:_1c:rd);:t 2.;,:iy ot11Gl' ofiioG:r may c..-;cercisc JJ lii.lG p9wcr o:i.:-" 0, CO:.1VGllJ.l:1g . ~- . ,;y au·1.1J.1or1 . una.c.r ' ,. ·o.'J.O '. 1O+ -JiOWGVGr, WO d 0 . ' o.x·GJ.C SQ.J.CL ·no·;; consider -t:1is a. rnatkr rc1Gv8nt in ot.'X decision, oncl we accordingly say no more on tho sc~bjoct.? since, in ·chis oaso, tho offico:r ·i-rho oo:o:rcisod the power of· a convening a.utho:ri ty wn.G a:::-p1~osoly appointed anu. uc J1avc alrcw:ly sl.1..ovm that his appoint;;-ion{ had l:o 1J8.sis in h:w., In tho light of the fore-going wo [l.l'G ~wt callccl upon fo consider the other matters nxgLwcl by learned counsel :eor ·G.t½.c appollantn, In n·GW of u.t10 .,.:..,.,.-1.::;<-l,J.J. .i.• .. " " -, ' ' \T in • ·c:.10 '. :.::.ppoin • urnon t or" ·GD.c ... '' col1von1.ng . au./.)~,.10:crcy, . ' 1. ·c' :i.~ o11 ows that thoro w2.s :.10 10:vrful cot.1rt-::1artia.l in c::;:istcnco an.cl ovc:ry-'i;h.ing transacted '. jl as well a.s oVerJr decision nude 2.t t11c suppor::;ocl t:ri?l was null and void. The appo::i,l oucht •;;o succeed on tha.t gr01.1.11d., But we d.osi:ro JGo add that even if wo b.nd -'G8.kcn the view tl12.t the t1°io.,l ua~J l1ot a nullit"', we still would " ,. have allowc-0. :'~J.o a,ppon.l on tho g:rou.ncl -t;,,_u:::l; thoro wn,s a idluro of justice,,. t tfo think it w:::-,,s b.iGbJ,y projudicin,1 for Col .. G.A. ItT:-..indi ullo, it is conccdcdv - ''), •WJ originn.tcs pros0cutions in the a.ri:JY n.s cl.iI'Gc·fo:r of legn-1 so:;."\lioos, to tnk.0 ;.; ~ part in tho -'i;:rinl as ·bG Juel.go AdvocatG, Tho rocord is,. indGod, not wanti11g ( ·~.; in czamplos of his inability to r,w.i1Y~ci; 1 " ' , i -.-m~.,-.tin.l posi tio:n.-i '.'I 1~) ~ -...... t ·,, ........ -t • • c-./5 .... , ·~-}- i- ~"· "r-ll'•- •<'. ·,;i_t! 'F" t-:t ,l ~ I i -~,-# .t,..-,X, : 5 I We allou tb.o c1;ppcal end quash tho prooooclinc in its cntireJGY• Uc do not aut;.10risc a. retrial in view of t:10 time f~ctor m'Jd tho, aspect· · j~t.mcntioncd.. ::CT1c o.ppollEmts shoulcl lJo sot free forthwith,. DAR ES SALfu.U11 10/6/91 J1JDGE~ Maira for 1st .L;pd!i..nt MmrnAmnndo for 2nd appellant Knmbr . · .. ·· .:.:::..~t-··. ~'·G. (J.J, MI~~ AG:\➔JlJD~o 10-6-91 . I .r -