19870505 TZHC Tabora

~CONL~IC CRI~ES JUhISDICTICN ( T ~\nCEA Lt:,GI~ TLY) ECGNC:tv.IC, CRihES CASB NO. 7 Of 198.6 ThE ht-.i-·l1 BLIC VE1.SUS 2. Iv, IChAEL FRANK CHARGE: Coi::-rupt Transaction contrary to sec:tion J( 1) of the ·frevention of Corruption Act No. 16 of 1971 read in conjqnction with paragraph 2 of the first schedule to, and sections 56 (1) and 59(2) of the •'· 'f Economic and Organized Cri~e Cotitr~l Act No. 13 of 1984. JUDGMENT OF THE CGURT. CHIPETA, J. The two accused persons in this case, Ramadhani Juma and YichAel Frank, stand jointly charged with the offence of cor~upt, trpnsaction c/s 3(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1971, read in conjtlc}tic,n with Paragraph 2 of the 1' irst Schedule to, and sdcti0ns 56(1) and 59(2) ~f •t~e Economic and Organized Crime Control Act, 1984. Both the ~ccused persons denied the charge. The prosecution's evidence is that in J<ebruary, 1985, there was an outbreak of Cholera in some villages o.f Urambo District, including !Viuungano village-. The authr>riti•es accord:ingl.,Ybanned the brewing of local liquor. On or about 13th 1''ebru13ry, 1985, a woman by the name of Mariam d/o Salum O,.:. lr, o 2) brewed local li.quor at Muungano B village~ The ward secretary one Juma Jagmlaga (~.w~1) went to Muungano B accompanied by militia men, among whom were the two accused persons. On arrival at the village, P.~.1 or~ered that two bucket~ of the local

liquor be seized and taken to his office and the rest of the liquor should be poured away.. P.ti.1 then left for his office on a bicycle leaving the two accused persons to lead PoW.2 to the w~rd office~ ~ On the way to the ward office, the two accused persona ! told P.~.2 that she and her child woul~ spend years in prison. w;en ?.l,.2 replied that there was nothing she could c~o, the. two accused persons told her: "Talk sensibly so that you can get help." tflhen she asked them what help the accused persons could give her, they told her: "Do you not have _something at home?" ~hen she told them that. she dia not have anything and that she had expee.ted to get something from the l:ocal liquor, they advised her to see a neighbour for help. An~ so it was that P.~.2 went to the house of one Chausiku d/o Lumuli (P.t·.3) and as1-:ed her to lend her (?.W.2) Shs. 500/'... , which P.h.J did. thile she was there, tbe second· accused follo-- wed her and took the Shs. 500/= fro~ P~½.2 and Shs~ 100/= f~om the hands df P.w.3. They then went~out and the accused persons ; shared the money an~ told P.~.2~ "Now the matter is over.. Do not worry". ,; On arrival at the ward office, P.¼.1 ordered P.W.2 to pour away.the liquor in the two buckets, warned her not to brew local liquor again,. and then s~t her free. That evening, 1·.h.t· received information that Pov'o2 was complaining that he (P. \·. 1)

had punished her twice by first poqring away her liquor and then asking hei ~o pay Shs. 600/= through militia me~. So i.t.1 summoned ?.~.2 and the two accussd persons to his office next morning so as to inquire into the allegations •. I:n the presence of .!:'. h •. 2, P. l,:. J,- and one Saidi Kil-iyamhogo (P_.t•.4), P.\'J •. 1 told ?.',.• 2 to narrate what had happened to her the previous day, whereupon P._1•/.2 st:atec that the two accused persons had solicited from her and received, a bribe of Shs. 600/= I so that they could forbe«r charging her with the offence rel,ating to the local liquor. When the accused per\s.ons were asked about the allegation, the twb accused persons admitted the allegation and said that they divided the mopey between th.e.q1, each: receiving Shs. JOO/= • •.• J I. ,. . 3 P.k.1 then told the two. accused persons to refund the money to ?•W ■ 2 right th~re. The 2nd accused then produced Shs. JOO/= and handed' it•to P.W.1. The first accused, however, said that he had spent his share of the money-the previous day. I . he pleadec with J?.\;.1 to allow him to got~ town to'{ind the money. P.~.1 the~ told him to brin~ the money by the follwwing Monday. On the pro~ised Mond~y the- 1st accrised did not appear, i;,.nd nieanwhile Police rec.eived information and ar-rested both accused persons on 18th February, 1985, and charged them acc0rdingly. In his defence

tin Oath the first accused ~aid that on the walnto the wardcdffite,P.w.2 told f>,v,.1-that she wanted to see,aunt nearby ;.nd teNt to.her. P.W.'1 ~llowed her and she we'nt into a house nearby. After a while, .t--. J .1 sent the 2nd accused for her, and ~he 2nd accused met her at the doorway.. and saw her crying. 1,-;·hen asked ' why she was crying, she said it was beceuse her fatbar was ill and she was ip trouble with the law. They then took he~ to the Ward Cffice where P.W.l rei,)J'ii'1,and · her, ordered the liquor to be pou1·ed away and released her. Next morning they were called to the ofCice where they found P.W.2, P.W.J and many other people. There the accu~ed persons were told that they had ,received a bribe of .shs.600/- from P.W.2, an allegation which both of th~m denied. They we~e then told to refund the money t6 P.w.2.·when asked by i-'.~.l" how much money he had on his person, the 1st accused sa::i.d that he ha~ no money, but the 2nd accu~ed produced Shs. 350/=• Cut of that money P~~-1 kept Shs. JOO/= and returned ;J fhs. 50/= to ~h~ 2nd accused. On 18/2/85, they were both arrested and charged.,_ The 2nd accused gave the same story, ·and both denied having made the confessions. None of them called any witnesses. I ~. ~ Each of them said that there was ba~ b1ood~between him and P.W.1. Having seen Bnd observed a~l the witnesses, including the two accused per.sous, we-

have note<l that P.w.2;" P.v1.3, and ... _4·' • F.11o4 are simple peasants who, as the accused persons readily admit, were complete strangers t6 the accused persons. We have also observe~ that in no way did these witnesses contra- dict one another or show by their demeamour that their story was concocted~ We are satisfied that these witnesses had no reason to frame any of the accused person, an:l that these witness~s, as well as P.w.1, told the court the truth. With regard to the story of the accused persons, we have had no difficulty in finding it as a hollow attempt to sidestep the truth. We accordingiy find it as cre~ting no reasonable doubt in the pro~ecution's case. Acco~dingl), we are satisfied and find as a fact that the two accused persons jointly solicited and receive~ an advantage of Shs. 600/= fot themselves so as to forbear ch. r ,dng P .w. 2 with an offence connected with the brewing of local liquor.. This is an offence under section J( 1) of the Prevention of Corrupt ion Act, 1971 •. We are accordingly satisfied that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against each of the accused person. W-e accordinly unani1N,U~ly find each of them guilty as charged and duly convict him forthwith.- :r1ti . ,.i/, ·,; . ' 11,J/(1 S1~g: B.D. CH-l:.P£~ A.., Presiding Judge Sdg., R.ASHIDI ABDALAHMAN - 1st Lay Member Sdg. IBhAHH'.: if\L~U,S HU~Bk" 2nd Lay Member

TABORA 5th May, 1987. 5 /5/87 Coram: As before. Both~~l!id?~rsons are present. Judgement delivered fn court this 5th day of May, 1987 • .· . •t/J, // i I;k(r(i B -~~kirEi'A i'RES I.Ehl~(_:~~ JUP,...~ • • •5 I",, Records: (Mr. Bilaro) of'fenrers. Mitigation: Frorr our recrods, the accused persons are first ~- 1s.t accused: My Lord, I have been in cust·ody fo:r,· 2 years and two wonths. I pray for leniency. 2nd aciused: ~y Lord I have a fa~ily of' 11. Six are at school, two in ~rivate secondary school. I have no relatives. My father died in a trc.ln eccident. So I have moved my fan1ily · ,~'i to Urambo. Ny wife is larre following a motor accident. I have been i~ custody for one year. allocutus: ( 1st :accused): B. D. CHII-'E_TA, P~ESitING JUCGE. 5/5/87 In asse.ssing .the sentences we ~ t~lcen into comerj._➔,.,.r,:5>-t"i '""' the fact that the 1st accused has beQin i1t-c,,.....+.~tty f'r,.;i:- !1l-0.1.'£ tlan two years; the moving plea in tri~·igfl.tion by the 2nd accus-ed and the fact that they are both first of£e~ders. We accordingly sentence each·· of' them to three ( 3) years imprisonment .. f·RES ID ING JUDGE. 5/5/87. S~g. RASHIGI A3DALAt11'-AN - tst Lay Member S dg. IBRAhU; ALJ,;AS BUMBA --2nd Lay Member • •• 6 6 CRCEfi AS TC CG~iGN~tTIONo We order that ea~h accused shall pay to P.W.2 Shs. JOO/= as cb~pensation. '• ; I . I ·/ I .· i / ;iii//,'.: _ ,: / 1r·1 1 C. ' . •: .: 1. .. , J...!/;,.-, /' 1 I 1:.. . '. / B. u. CHIPETA, l RES ID ING JUL GE. 5/5/87;,.: Sdg. RASHIC•I ABDALAI-'J•;AN 1st Lay Merrber S dg. IBFAHH'£ AL},AS HJMBA 2nd Lay Member. ~ights of Appeal explained.