19891124 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN THB HIGH CvUh'l' OF _TAN~ii.NI11 il.Ff~LLi~TE JUl<lbDICT ION Hl'i- CUUR'l CRH1Ifv1.,.1 tt.l?P.c..11.L NO~ 142/89 1 1 · _0kldlNHL CHIMINaL Chb1 NO. 998 OF 1989 UF 'l'h.c. 1n.s·rRICT CuU.f(T (;]!' 11..lL! .. LiL::iThIC'l' ll'l' lli, 1=TU BbFOR.i.;; viil.G.tju/:iA BS¼. PHII~CIP,.. 1 H.JbID:8NT Mi.GI.STHf.!.'.L'E DFi? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o fl O O O O O o•o O O O O O O O O li.l:1 .l: BL.L.ANT (Original Prosecutor) ire rs us Ef'H.1-1.TH 1.tjJJJ.i-i. &. 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 •••••• • •• 0. 0 0 0. 0 0. 0 £t~b}'OND£NT (Original accused) J U D G Jvi .c.. N T. This appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) arises out of a ruling of the District Court of Ilala, at Kisutu, Dar es Salaam,· whereby the District Court refused to let the D:J?P take over and continue Criminal proceedings instituted and prosecuted privately by Ephata the r~spondent herein. Lema,Lagg~ieved by that ruling the DPP has preferred this appeal to this ·court against it. Ht the hec:..ring of the appeal, as in the court below,· the DPP was represented by !vtr .. Massaba, Principal State i1.ttorney,. assisted bJ Mr. Manya ~tate Attorney, and Ephata Lema was represented by Dr. Lamwai, learned advoc~t~. 1,1 : ' lhe fa:;ts forming the baokground to the matter c.re that on 16/9/1989 1!.iphu.ta Lem.::. (the complo.inant),- through Dr. Lamwai, filed u .-011J'Plc..int in the Dfotri~t Court

aEeging that six policemen of Oysterbcj Polic~ .Station Dar es 8al~-m, had unlawfully assaulted one Elisante Jl-1w1o:nga 11 by whipting him with elect:·ic cnbles l~ •: in consequence thereof made the said i!.:lisante hwanga suffc,:~ ctctual bodily h2rm.n The Policemen acc.;used of having p0rpetr<-<-ted thu ascault were listed il,1 the complaint as being Inspector Lupembe, Cpl. Prosper, P.C. Amani, PoC. David, Sgt. Kimweri and Cpl. 0 anga. li.pparently, afte:r the complaint was fi1ed the court issued summonses to require the appear~ncea of the atc~sed police officerso Then the complain&nt/respondent filed an ex-purte application to be permitted to himself prosecute the accused,. &s a priv&te prosecutor. The application was made under Section 99(1) of the Criminal Procedurd 1~ct, 1985. The applic£,tion was heard. by lfagessa (P.Hh) on 18th September, 1989 apcl on that date while the ace;used did not appc:8r in court Mro Komeye, a State i1.ttorney, appeared. rie sought to take over and c·ontinue the proceedings but Dr. Lc::..mwai for the complainant/respondent objected. The learned ~rincipal Hesident Magistrate upheld the objection, holding that Mr. Komeye"had not proved b~forc this court th&t the DPF haAi, .-s: / " 0 .... ) •9 . . in writing, delei:_;'v.tecl to him the powers tJ take over rrosecution of this c~se, as required under bection 9·~ of Civil .J?roced,ure ,,ct, ii rhe c

omplain,tnt was then 1 permitted to p~0secute the c&se himself, as~ private prosecutor. Upon being so p,:rmittecl,. lJro ....,ctmw£..i proeeoded :to E:.i-,ply f,or wc,r:c&nts ......... . of arr~st to CQnpel the apve&rance uf the . accused persons.· The court gr&nted the aiplication and is~ued the warr&nts. The case was then set down for m0ntion on 20th ~eptsmb~r 1 19~9. . On 20th 0 eptember, 1982 . t the ~ccused appeured. Mr. Masaba, Principal . State AttorneJ, also appeared~ He informed the court that he had been instructed by the D~~ to take ov~r the prasLcution and proclu9ed a document _in which the DPP hod 4elege.ted to him the power to ·c.o so,· ioe. to take ov0r ancl continue the:, prost:cution of tht:) C£,Sea Dr Lamwai again objected to the b~P taking over the prosacutio~ of the case. He made ~ubmissions and Mr. Masaba w&s given the opportunity to reply. In a ruling whiol~ is now tht: subject matt.;;r o_f this apr,;al, th6 lec.rn0d Princip£;;1 lte_sident 1.:1agistrute &.g1..in. upheld Dra Le=..mwui I s obj8ctions and r0fused. to h,t the Dh- tc-.ke ov .. r und continu0 the proceedings. /i..s indicc:.:.hd. eurlivr on at the beginning of this juugm;;;nt, the D:i:>P was aGGrieved by the ruling of the lec-.rned m~gistrate and he ·hes filed this c:.pj,,eal. at the commencement of the he~ring of th~ a~pual before me, Dr. L&ri1w,;d tooi;: two points of prelimin.:.ry obj0cti jns

to it ( the api:,;:,al). 1 The . . first ~oint of his objuction to the a~peal ·was that it (the appeal) is incompetent because it is an uppeal from an 'interlocutory ruling. He rererrect to ,section 359.(1) Criminnl Proc a<'.ur0 hct c:.nC. c;:itecl H.1Bl~UK s/o b.lli:F'.r'U V. H. (196-9) HCi.i 314, an~ rt. v. C:id·iL~S NYil-;:.EiNDtt (HC) j,•iisc. CH~ C,rnse No.16/85 (Dar GS Sulc:...,d~ .t,egistry; (~nreported) . to support -his . arguments. In reply Mro hasaba submitted that with r8gard to the situations to which .. . tth0 c~ses) , Lthe Ccisas cited by l>ro .L&ir,w&i applied they!~, 1 ~re correctly decic1ecl" He contended, hcwev0r,th&t the situation in t1! inst&nt matter is different anu the cases reli.;;cl on by D•r., L&n;wai hc::vc :10 applici~tion to it~ He pr&yed therefore that I overrule the fir2t Jbjection rciiS~d by DR. L~mwai to the appeal. I agreed with Hr. ~&s~ba and overruled Dr. Lamwai on this point. I inllic ted how0ve·: thi,t I woulcl give my roe.sons for ~oing so in the ju~gm~nt in th~ appe&L itself. I now give those reasons. .Section 359(1) C:ciminnl 1-roe;e<lur., act to which Dr,. LEtmwo.i r,)fe:rred . ' provic.ies that "any per.sun c::.ggrii:V2J by ar.y .finding, sentence or order r,JD.ll.G or pas.seu. by a sube,rtlimi.te cuurt~ooo,~umc..y up::;ieul to t_he Hi[Sh Court •• ■ o ■■■ o ■ 11 rhis suction is unw,)r ;i~.;.)1X:.::tls Gen"'rall:y 11 c;f

L10 1 CriminaJ. procedur~ Let. Ti0n th€re is ~s~tion378(~) Crimin~l ~~occdure Ii .. . . ·>'/·3 ~ ...... ,: -~ - t- 50 Act uncler 11 i1.ppeals by the Director of Public Prosecutions" wherein it is provided: - 11 378(1) v✓hcre the i.Jirector of Public Prosecutions is dissatisfied with any acquital, fin<ling, ~~ntence or order made or passecl by a subordinate court •••••••• he may appeal to the Eigh Court." ii part frum thC:: aJL,i tional worJ"acE'j,ui t'tal 11 these provisions in· l:ie:ction 378 Criminal Procedure itct are not very. J.ifferent from those in seotion 359 1 but there is no doubt that the DPF in this matter is appeali11g unc.er Section3?8 and not uniler Sec·tion Section 359 _re·f~rred to QyDr. ~am,:1.ai-. In !"iabruk s o Oron -ai v-. R. Cletusi s/o Seffu v. R._ and R. v., Chr.,.rles .Nyirenda,L: ~t?Er~as involved was the int~rpretation of bection 312 .,f the then Criminal Proc·edure Coe.le amt the provisi9ns of Section 312 of the Code are in all matLrial particulurs identical with those of Section 359 cf th1:a pr\:;'sent Criminal Proceclur<:: ii.ct. In all the cases c:..bove it was hc:ld thut Section 512 of the Criminal Procedure Code diu not provi<.le for appeals from interlocutory orders in Criminal appeals and there is no right of c.ppeal from suc,h orders. ThE: case of Cletusi s/o ~effu v. .1-(. is more ~emonstr~tive of the p~sition: there the appellant sought to

appeal from a ruling by a magistrate rejecting applicc:..ti-Jn by the appellant that the hearing of the charge against him be transfarred to another magistrate~ Georges C.J. (as he then was) held, intur alia 1 ''•••• ■ I am not convinced that an appeal can compete- n ntly be lodged frcm an or(er of this nature. Section 312 of th~ Criminal Procedure Code,. C&p.20, rbads, in part as follows:- '1·save as hereinafter provided, any person aggri ved by any finding, sentenc3 or order made or passed '.,y a subordinate court ••• o. may appeal to thd ·High Court ••••• !on the face l of it, the sect:t.on appears wide ~out,th to:_; include any ord•J:- or finding ma<le by a subor ... dinate court. It cculu, for example 1 include a-ruling aftE::r ,<J. trial within a triol that a confession is &~missible, or a ruling after a submi~sion th~t there was no case to answer, I do not think it could have bc:en contemplated that there woulJ be a pause at such junctures of a trial to allow the accus~d person to challenge such orJers. If that were the case, then.th1:are w0ul~ be a uuty on the part of the .magistrate to inform the accused of his right of appeal an~ the necessary delay to enable him to make his oin<.l,upabout it. '.l'he proper _,, , ' !51 - view tom& woulu b~ th~t a finding or ordtr is appeul~ble in a Criminal proceuding only when it is p~rt of an ordbr convicting or ucquitting th~

accused p~rson, thus finally tlisposing o.f the matter, or when th~ code cont1:.:ins a specific provisions enabling an ~PP~~l to be fil0d from su~h an 6rder. I can1.ot think th~t section 312 contempl&tes apf~~ls from interlocutory ordurs in crimin~l app~clls. riCcordingly I would hold th~t the appul ant h&d ~o right of appe&l. His ap}.l-.:ul is accordingly dis.mis.sed.u Part of thu submission by Mr. Mas~ba that tha c~E~~ cited by Dr. ~umw~i h&ve no application to this 'inst~nt mattur w&s that the ruling of ~h& ~rincipal kdsid&nt M~gistrute from which th~ DPP is appealing is not .' an intorlocutory ruling. It, is he contdnded, u final ruling in so far ai the DfP is conc~rnede in ~y vi~w, a~art from an order or finding being p~rt of an acquittal or conviction in order to b& appealable, whothcr it is or not u final order or finding in·so far as a party to ·eonc~Tned is ~lso a fuctor to b~ considered. I fit is, it is appealable even if proceedings have not reach~d the acq.uittc:,l or conviction sh,ge. IM th~ instunt matc~r, for example, if the complainant/respondent . . h~d b~en rufuscid p~rmission by the learned magistrat~ to prosecute this case himsolf h1:: woulci. 1 I think, hll.ve bt:,:;n _entitled to l:l.Pi.1c:al against the refusal, for, oth;,r~dse, it wc.uld h'"'\,e meant .for him to forego the· P.ros;:cution of th,a case altogethbr.· ;,c, also in my vhw, for the DPP to be

refused· to take .ov,~r and continue the pros(;C"tltioh of the case, it was a final situation. There w0uld not h&ve occurred another occassion when he would 6a(e possibly buun given the ap~.ortunity to prosecute the case after th"'. ac.quitt"'l .or conviction of the accused. Nor woµld it have bevn logical to expect the DPP to ha e wa:ted up to th1;; acquittal or conviction juncture in ~ht: Cc.se to app_al· • . i1hat woulcl have b,::<;n the, obj-.,ct of th~ appwal at that st ... ge? To tctkt: ov"r ~nd continu.;: a ;,prose:- cution which hus already bec.n conc.lucled - by a privat~ prosecutor? 1.\.nd how woulct h~ h<1Vci bccomt: u p"'rty to th..:: ):rocE::0dings at th&t stage in orcl.:.;r tc ltcquir(; the right of ap1.c~l in i h-1 Cc.,se'? I am of the view that th(: ruling of the 1~0.rned inc..gistrate in this case wc:..s u final, not an inte~locutory, ruling in this casE: and th0 D~B hud the right of &ppeal from it. 'l'huse. are th0 grv1..nds upon whir.h I ovi:;rrruled Dr • .1.Jamwc..i's ~bj0ction to tho D~P•s up~vnl. '.£'he othvr point which Dr • .Lamwc...i ro.is,::d, end which wlls not resisted by ?-'ir. Masabu, wus thc;:t the Sb.id µccust:d polic0 officers s.houlc.l not have ba~n made respond~~ts to~eth~r with the compl~in~nt/r~spondent in-the hec..tdinf'; of the pdition of 2.p}J1.;c.(l.' I readily agreed with learned . . counsel on this &nd directed th&t the names of th& six

police officors - 52 be lleletetl or cancelled from· trw ht;b..:ing of the Petition of appeal filed by the DPP~ · This Jisposes of the two prelimin&ry points of objC::ctions to the ap 1Jeal raisccl by lJr • .L&mwai. I will now i-,roc.;:ed -to a oon-aitler;..t~:r·. of tho= ap}'eal it. elf; ln r<;:fusing to ht thE::; D1:'P take over &nu· continue the proce~J.ings in this cuie tho= learn0tl mugistrate held, firstly th~t a court of law has power to Jeciue whether or not to l~t the DPP take over and continue criminal :i;.,rocet:Jint,s i:,r1 va t~ly ins ti tutt:tl anu ]:.Jrosecuted. lie held that this is becuuse the law empowers courts to permit a p~rson tc., i:istitute ]:.Jrivate 1Jrosecution anJ. once a court has 5rantet1 such p0rrnission the Dh· cannot t&ke over anJ continue the pro·aeedings as of riuh~ for the law ~oes not say th&t such purmission is subject to the ~ow,,rs of the DPf to take over anJ continue 1:;roce~dings. ( Then on the basis of the _abuve holuing the l0ar.ned magistrate proceeded to consider whether or not the case should be prosecuted by the private prosecutor or by the ~PP. he held:- 11I shall tc:.ke into consideration the· provision of seo'tion 90(3) (3) of Criminal Procedure .;,ot which states that in the CPA exercising his powers unuerLthe DPP shall to so in orcler to protect public intereEt, in the interest of justice anJ in o~der to ]:.Jrevent the abus~

of th& legal process. Can one say that the .IJPl- wants to take over prosecut_ion of this case so as to prctect ~ublic int~rest or in the interest of justice or-in urder to prevent abuse of the 1,,r;al j,,rocess1 Dr. Lamwc-i h1:ss c.J.re;u1::tl that the circumstances ~f this case have shown th/;.(t th& L?~'s intention is f~r neither of the above menti0netl fc.J.ctors. I utree with :Ur. Lo.mw~i thut the circumst/;.(nc1::s which ·h~ve surrounded this case have tiiRqualified the DPP from takine; over the prosenution of th~_.; case. by .r or in tho. first place the .:: L ,r0s:;;:&ct shu~l the DPP' s officers anc":. officers, unuer, whoc, the accuse cl persons are workinth is enough proof that the li.l:'J:' 1 s intention to take ov1.::r i,rc.,secution of this case is not in the interest of justice but to suppress justice." In grwunJs 2 - 4 of his petition of ap:_.eal, the Df'P has challenged these holdings of the learned ~rincipal rlesident Magistrate as follows;- 1. '.L'hat the learned l-'rinciJ,,al Besident Magistrate erred in law when he <lisallowed the Directer of Public Prosecuticns who had ap~lied un~er bectiun 90(1)(b) uf thr:, Criminal Procedure i,ct to· take 0ver the prosecution of Criminai Case No.998 of 19890 3. fhe leaine<l ~rincipal h~siJent Matistrat• erred in law anJ. fc:-ct when he helJ thc..t the intention by tht! iJir..,.ctor of i'µblic .1:-'rusecutions to take over i_.,rosecution w&s not in the interest of justice but to SUJ..!j_.,ress it.

4. That the learned l-'rinci~al ~esiJent Ma~istrate misconstru0tl the ~rovisiuns of Section 95(5) of the CriQinal ~ruceuure hct &na thereby arrived \,, at a wrong decision that the ~Owers of the Direttor of Public ~ros~cutions unJer section 90(l)(b) of the same ~ct ¼v~e subject to.review by the court. Before me, Mro Masaba elaborcited on these grounds an<l referred to ( i) DL v o Yus ufu Mze e J HC) Cr. ,-q::p. J:IJ o. 68/87 1 l)ar es Sala&tm Re.E,ist ry iEnre}orte<l), (ii) (1989) Commonwealth Law Bullet~nL Vol.15, No.l (Janu.::rl, issue) p.,6 2 (iii) (198~) Comrnonwec,lth Law Bulletin Vol.14 9 No.4 (October issue) p.1449 and (iv) httcrnei Gen~ral 1 Ogun State and Another , v. E.c.~ (1987) L.r<C (cct?-e.t) 607, (The Correct citations for the . . .• Commonwealth Law Bulletins are (1988) 15 CLE c.nu (1988) 14 CLB 1444 res1Jectivt~ly). In reply, 1.,r. Lamwai, not unnu.tur&lly or unex:i:,ectedly, sup:i.,orted the ruling of the learneu m~gistr~te unu 1r£Lyed th&t the ap,eal by the D:r'i:>. be <lismissecl. To ce,m}Jrehenu the le~al in mile.uof t::it: matter, I think it is important to reproJuce h~r~ all the relevant ~revisions of the Criminal ~rocodure hct, 1985. These are thobe in ~0.89(1), 90 (1), (2) (3j (3) (5) 92 anLl 99 (1). ,-i.11 these sections &re ·c:.nJer th~ het,J.in(S 110 ontrol of under Criminal i-'rocebJini;s 11 and exce:i,:,t for 0ection 99(1) ,Lthe sub-heading 11 (a)

The 0irector of .Ful.llic .1:-'rosecutions" of th..; Criminal Frocedure 11.ct •. ' Section 99(1) i~ • un-:.er the subheuding 11 ( b) i,lJ];,ointment of .Public i?ros e cut ir·:fs.~' 11 bection.89(1) ~rovi<les: 1189 - (1) 'l'h0re shall be a :U:d·ector of }ublic Prosecutions for the United :Uepublic ~;)'.o shall be a public officer in the Uovernment of the United ~epublic ~td who shall be. a}J~ointe<l by the President • ( J Section 90 provides: - ~~ - (1) ~he Directer 6f Public Proaecutiohs s)all have powers in any case in which h& conai~ers it desirabl~ so to ~o. - (a) to· institute a.nu. uni1er-take criminal proc·eedirtgs ac&inst any p~rson before any court (other than a Gourt - Martial) in respect of any offence alleged to have been committed by that person; ....• .., .. · (b) to t~ke over anu continue any such criminal proceecline;s that h1:.<Ye. been instituted or unde·r.:. taken by any other person or authority; and (c) to discontinue any such criminal proceedirigs instituted or undertaken by him or any other authoritity or person. ( 1) The pow8rs_· of the .uirector of Publi.~ f'rosecutions under sub-section· (1) of this section may be exercised by him in person or through officers of his department acting in accordance with his general or special 'instnuctions. (2) 1 he poweis conferred on the uirector of_Publiri' Prosecutions by p~r&gr~phs (a) and (b) of sub-section (1)

shall be v~stetl in him to the exclusion of any other person or authority ••• ~ •••••••••••••• ; ••••••••• ~•~• (3) In the exercise of his pow<::rs under this Aot the Director of Public ~rosecutions shnll have regard to the· public interest, the inter,~_3ts of justice anJ. the need· to 0 prevent abuse of the leeal_µrocess. (4) • G O e • 0 o • o • e O O • • • • • • • o • ,, •.• • • • • f • ♦ • • • e • 0 e ill ,. 1t :. • e • • • e • • • •,.. (5) In the _exercise of the :::>owerS -conferred on him by this section, the Director ~f Public Prosecutions shall have and exercise his own <Hscretion and shall not be subject to .the diI1ections or control of any person exeept· the President • .E'inalzy, section 99(1) -p.ev~a;.-!- .. "99(1) Any Magistrate inquring into or trying any case may permit the prosecution to be condu'cted by any person, but no personother than a public prosecutor or other officer genera11·y or specii~·11y aNthorised by the President in this behalf shall be entitled to conduct the prosecution without such ~ermission." •••••• /8. . ' These are the provisions ~f the l&w ap~licabl~ to the matter. In Ro Vo Yusuf,1 Hzee (supra)~ which involved the powers of the DPP. ------···--- to disci)ntint:<: under S.9O(l)(c) vrirliinal Procedure. Act 'o:;iminal procee• dings instituted and prosecutetl by a private prosecutor, I held that (1) tl1e DPP 1 s ieosion·._ in exerciso. of

powzrs vestef. in him by S.9O(1) (c) CPA· cannc t be challenged or rejected in or by courts, and (2) In deciding tr discontinue proceeaings in terms of Section 9O(l)(c) I .~riminal ~roc:dure Act he is not bound to disclo~e to the court, or giVe any ot½er re~sons, that he has hbd rugarJ to th~ ~ubllc interest, the interc-s t1: of just ice ancl the ne'°d to prov;;;nt abusoe: of the legal process, m~t· crs stipul&ted inbection 90 (3) Criminal Procedure Act. In so hoL,in 0 I follcMed the :r:.nglish house of Lords decision in GOU1UBT V. 1 l~Iul\f C,,f ?G,:;'11 OF'YIC~, 1;Ui,i'~~i,!) ,-tiiiu G'.l1Ih,,,ti· (1977) 3 All .EoR• 70, · -especially ;he views of Viscount 1Jilh0rue:in that tlucisiono In (-19! q) 15 CLB 46 ~ there is u short: sum_mury on points similar to I the the on~s untl~r consirleruticin &s jutlici&lly considij~e~·a~d determi• ned:-.u_pon jn Barb&doso '1'he sumn;&ry is as follows:- "The bupreme G0urt has· had o-:.cassion to consider for t~e first time the question of. review of exercise of the ( pow:rs of the uirector of Public Prosecutions under Scc~ion 79 of the Constitution, The matter was heard by Sir 0enys 1iilliams 9 · Chie.f Justiceo Bri,➔ fly theBe powers are to institute, und<::r :,ake; co-:itinue or discontinue any criJinal proce~dinga in any case in which he considers it d0s :.rable to <lo soo Undb~ Section 79r5) these_ powers 11 Shllll not be subj0ct tu the

uirection or control of ·any .other person or authorit:v., 11 The Court coLsiclerec.1 0ection 79 in -· .ation to Section 117 (10) whicq is as followP:- 11 i'h provision of this c0nst:it11t:ion +:,t any person 0r authority sl.ull be subjvct to the· uircction ·, r contrc,l of any other p,rson or authority in exurcising try f~nctions under this c,Jnstitution shall b.e construed as pre.eluding a court from e::ercising jurisuiction in relatio; to 2.ny question performed w:ll:thc:-r th ...~t person · or aut.'1ority ho.s f_ .. . th9se t\mctions in accordance with this constitution or cJ.ny other L1.w: ih~ chief justice held th~t - Je It seems t·hat the provisions ,,f Section 117(10) of the Constitution neeessar..)r le&d to the conclusion that the cou~t .is meant to h&ve jurisdiction to review the.exercise by the Uirectur 0f his functions unucr Bection 79 of tha Constitution.

2. Th~re is in my opinion nothing t0 preclude this court fro~ reviewing the exercise of the functions of t~e Director unQdr.Section 6 of the Criminal Pro- cedure 11.ct, or .Section.19 of the Police J<..ct. 11 In (198!) 14 CLB 1444 Prof. ~dwards of the University -of Toronto~ Canada raiEes and discusses the q~~stion whether the exercise of the powers of th,· Canauian ,1.tt0rney - Gcne;ral to.· institute, undertake, "I t c0ntinue or discontinue Criminal proceedin~s can now be challenged on the grou~d thet such exercise of the powers h~s infringed certain provisions uf the Ca.11cl.clian Charter of .ic(ights which · is el!llt1enched in the Constitution of Canada. r In 1-1.ttorne:y-General, Ot;un .State aw.l An0th0r v • .i!:genti (supra) the Nigerian Court of Appe&l has held emphi.tically that:- 11It was settled by tlle Supreme 1.;ourt 1 s clecisio_n in the f1ori case th,. t the Cc,urt could not pronounce on the validity of the Attorney-General's exercise of his powers ••••••• to entc,r nolle proseqyi., 'l1 h<.,u8h c:cn aggrieved p0rson who has t suffered from an unjust exercise of th&t power might not be wit'1-outremeJy, his rl;medy was not to ask the court to review the exercise of the powero 1; In th,: 110'.l':in Cuse r,c:L,~rrec1. to Ly thG r~igerian Court of Appeal in the passai;e above, it was helcl:- " 1' ' "'l'he /1.ttorney - Gen1::ral -of a Stnte in Nig-=ria has many

powers antl duties with regard to Criminal vrc~eedings in respect of any offence cfeated ty or under any ~w of the House.of Asi:;embly of the btate. These pow0rs ere -clec:rly spelt out in section 191 of the 1979 of the ~~•~titution. He may, fcir exa~ple, stup any prosecution unJer ~ State Law by enteritg a E_~_grosequi. He need not 6ive :t. 1y reasons for his <focision. ~11. he needed to <lo when deci<ling tL ~iscontinue any such Cri~incl proceedings ut any stage of ~he proceedings is to hbve regard tv the public interest, th& inter0st of justice and the need to prevent abuse of the letLl process. A number of factors, known to the Atturney - Genere1.l, must of necessity, come to his min~ when he JeciJes whether to prosecute or not. It muJ not be in th~ public int0r0st to disclose any of these. To my knowletlLe, anJ presumuLly for these reasons, the courts helve n~var soueht to interfere with .the exercise of that powur. Thut is ~ow it sh0ul~ be, b8urin~ in minJ that -· . . ... _;'. . . ··. ' ; ! ;~:;: ,.•:.. \: -- . ....... f the atturney G0n~ral ,, is thu principal-lbw officer c·~ t~e~tati c~uple<l with the fact that he should :not ·,.uE: su·bjected to any pressure E~~ tlH,r by the .t;xe- cut1ve or' by the Courts ~n the eiercise of this- enor- . ' In my ,;i2w the po.s:ition in Barbe.dos·; wh, :re the cotirt_s can review·'~ thi:: ,exe~r-is,, of power,s by th-,:, ~PP, i 9

o~l·y·· pos,:: ible b1.::ca_u~e of the__ j ·constit-c;ti'~~- (Secti0n ·117 (10) W!lich says co~rts 'can. do SOe·' The ~ ..., • • J,.; '•1 -a;rti:tJ.~ .,u'y -._.Jrofe·ssor·:.i:;G.tv).:.rur:; Un -1:hv C[u1n1J.i·,,·1 poE.:i tion seems to . in<.licate~ . .:) ;,::.: ---~ ·.·.;,>"~xerc:i'.se>o~ : ~ powers . by ~b-:: At_t.orney G011,1n-•.l.;i,,n Can1:tua to pros<::.cute, .~; tuke ove:r:··;.:.ll'.l~'.. c-onti-nue u.!'.' ui,scontim10 Gr~.minu.l, proceeding?l·• Prof_. ___ ~dw~ids • DJ~ w~n~ers • • I' whether-beq~uee uf the Ch&rt~r of ~ights·suGh- •• ( : , I • • '• • exercise. ~f powers . can .be' 9ubject . . J.'Ci::ie-•r to .. b'y. cvurts. ~,: . Atttlrney __.._ - ,) _Ci1::ntra_l~ uc;un .StLltc ancl 1-i.~..?'.!:!~.;.~ V. ~c;i;n+:i: _-c:;;~:.c...:..._Il~~- are~ in my view,_;- on _·a1f,· (_~ur..? witE_ my use i~-i' o~Jn _!)_Pf v·,, Yus~f./J.~fi~ 'J:he._ learn1::d . mag_istrete _w[1.:,(r0fe'rr·e_,1 ·to Dl:.;_,;;'v,, Y,isu_f Ivi~~- in_(.ccurt below, but he <.li-st1:ngi;iGhcµ it ty ;si:..yiYl"g thcit it··D.p;,;liecl to the exercise , - by the , -., ,-,-_J;,l-'r of· t hE.: powers unc.l&r b·~ ?.O(l) (c) CFA. (to; di~con·tinue_ iroc~~hingst_, ,- a-nu no't to the exercise of the-r"c;.t, .of, the poi-h➔ r·s. I hole} here~t·hat '~ the e,em .a-i pri:11ciple. unci?"rl7.i~L; · th-C:: r'kic_:.~i~~i1· :).1 LPP v-; Yusuf· =t,1iee \ • >'• •' I . • I • • , ' _ii_~ applies,-tc-'t;he exercis.e· e,f ·powers

,Ly tne:, -ll~,J ur.iller s.90 (l)(c) as _ .. . . . ; • • , • . . . , ;,'I well,.as.-~111:\0-r 3·090(1)(£.1;;) ~nd (b.fC.::-'1:i.. -~'h.i.s J.;;; the generat trencl of tll~- ~·· 1 • • ,.. • • ..... • •• • r..~ auth·vri'i ies· l-itvi-E:i-l(l°d uL.o:V-b · .:JHh :,_~ef.•:c,<rcl ~9 . .::,,.9o(l)(a) -· (c), CP.? \~ . ---,1 t.he L.t"r hus ~00n:·--v0stecl wi_t)1 ,pow_ets t.:..i tl-c th-::: ·:'.1:1.ings he has been au- A How can c:.nybouy pre- .. ,vent him· fr.'<::ra- exer:si,3ir,g t~10sr; ,p,~w.-jr,,;:, 1,- 1 ;ii t:Lc law says he c&n exer- ·'1; . -~is:e~th (r~? ~~'-,,,:~ ·n;~ pr0visi~n in \,ur ju:rir I; j_cti°(A' ~:;1,:,: h as those in . ;~ . . .. ' ., ·, ·- ':i b.117(10) of the Cvnstitutivn uf BcrL~1r, jy virtu• of which courts car rev J.lav' the ext: re h, e of thd .lJ i:'}? 1 f:5 1;c,we::.•1;;·. , . • ,. . _ ·1 ·-·1! ,1, . c.tS c::lr~<---1,:y ":1own 1~~,.lcl t,nat · h,, learned mug1stx-fate ,L,bec.::.,ttse the : :.mph,1pr~nt,;r~$p0n<.lent h&d . . ., 'i· . ·, ..... . ' al... rea.,ly be811 pt:rr;-iitteu by the, cvu.r-> ·:i.n · · h:i.s c;;.;se t v, c',Jp,L!.uct priyute . ' . . . • l ., _pruscc·ltions, . tho D?f c uuh: only exerci.i ,, h:i.s p0wers q· \<'-,,king over cinu': . ·_ • I ';( . .,:· .- C Ont in·~ in g subject to the per!!)is_sion ,._;y· hf-> court &lready ;e;ivcn to .· .. /, . the cv.npluin ...mt/r..,:;;ponuen:to - ·~'his . is ho.; t'he le<-<rned m.:..(,istri...te . -?' ~

~ expres3etl his vi~ws "• ••• '. ith rGlation to . privute . p:ro:,~cuti6n section 9.9(1) ~ C'tl.;i. e;ives p::;we;r :to the.court tu a.llo~ pr0secuti0n t-'yfbe c~n~uctetl Ly c private prosecutor~ these powers by luws~.then,the - . '; .• .! . ccurtb should h~ve ulso . f •. • . power tc, clociLle that. .... a.. Jkrson . -~ \vl:o hus applied to conduct ',; -t p~ivnte prosecution shuulJ be.allowed tu ~o so~ eve:1 if he is op;,,,oseu by the Df'l-'. vthvr~ds.e: ~ection 99(1) CPA woulcl hc:ve teen \ ✓ orc.e::d with a prcviso that the c~urt shall h~ve ~vw~r to allow pr~vate prosecution unless objecied tc by the I Di!.1 .. In my 0pinion; u1~c.kr i:>,)ction 99(1) CJ:-'A tLo ccurt h~s,fdwet~tui~llow one to c0nJuct pri~Lte prosecution evjn if that 1:.lpplic'---tion, ns it is in t1?-is case, is oljected by the ~P~. hD~ to thut ext0nt the court has puwt'r to review the decision 0f the JJ1-.~:' with regard to privGte ~rosecution. .ii.nJ for th~t matter, there- , i'ore, this' cuurt will proceed to deciue if this ·case ~·1 is tc be prcsecute::d by a private pr0secutor or by the 1 "DPP. 11 in the: with respect, 1:1k:.t is stat,~d,i&bove pe1.s::;c1.t,e frum thi::; judg,ment of::"~~}~- le~rned magistr&te is not in accord with what the law provides. 1 1 Ai • _.,,,_ ~ alreuuy indic~ted, no priv~te persun CbD unuertake a prosecution in a orimir.al CU.Ge without the pt,r1:iission of the cc·i.lrt.

'.Jihis is Wh&t ·. bectioti 99(1) C~A provitles. Now, ciection 90(1) (b) CPA provi<les that the lJ!-'P cnn t&k<:.: over c.nu. continue 11 any such prc;c0<::dings that ·have been inst_ituted 0r. unt.1.1:,rtaken J2L.....E-Y~~~ r person'! Any other pt:rscn h~re must m0an or inclu~e a private prose~utor &n~ a private prosecutor, 1 us note<.., do0s nut C unc'.uct proseeuut..:_ons i-·i th0ut the permis.:- ion of the •f t c uurt. v,hu.t it mvuns then is tht,.t even 1·hen i.... ccurt perrr.its 'a.ipe-.rato.~ i -~ · to ~aaertake a prosecution, th0 DPf will :1~ve the powers to take over anJ continue the prosecution from t,, .t pt::rson. The general ~rinciple which emeru,es therefurt:: i's thL t whoev1...r institutes or under- takes criminal proceedin5s in this country: he uoes sc subject to the ov0rall i-,owers of the Di-'1." to control th, c::: 1,roceedint;s.. That is why, I thin!-: the heac:int; to the 1-,rovisions u.;, 8r consic:te,cttion is 11 Control ol i Criminal .f'roceeuings 11 nnJ. immediately b ~ ow if there is the sub-heading 11 1.Jirec:;or of Puulic 1-'rosecutions.," 'l'h0 , verall control of criminal · procee J 1nl,s · J.ll th J.S . COUl1 t ry :,_t . then VesteC,, r. . th e .ui.t-', 1 •.. . Th G 1 E:£1rnec1 magis t ra t e ·· therefor·e erred wh&n he h8lll .that he cv :,.u prevent the DPP from taking 1j over uncl...,r .Section 90(1) (b} Ci:>1-i.o Then thc)re is the question

that tl1'J D.i?P shoulcl show, when exer- cisin1::, powers vestcc..1 in him unJer tl1C: C~1:,, :hat he hu.s had ree;ard to the p~blic int0rest, the interests of justice &nd the ne0d to prevent ~buse of the leGal process, The learned m~gistr2te s&ys in exercising 11 his i-,cwers untier the Ci-'ii the DP:i:-' shaJ:; d.c so in order to protect r i. publ-c interest in the intt::rest of justice and in order to prevent the i:.l.bsse of the 10 se.l 1,,roc0ss o 11 \Ji th rd,:r_,ect cct.:,: in, thc:r0 is a : ... " . \. \ misre~ding hare of the law.on the port.the leurned magistrote. s.90 (3) C:i?A does not s&y the DJ:P ·she.11 ~x~.rcise his p·owe-rs. under the. CPA llin ortkr tj_' protE:ct publ.ic interest etc. it says, ancl this is plain, "In ·:he exercise of his powere unaer this Act the Director of .Public i;Jros'-'cutions shall huve regarcl to the public interest•· the interests of justice tmµ the nefdtl to prevent abuse of the le g.:.l proce.::J_s. II Th0re is,us I see it t a world of d.ifforences between u.0ing s0mathing i 1 inordt.::r tu 11 an..l "hLwin~ regard to'' certuin matters inu0ing oorr.~thing. In sayint; th<lt the DH· shvultl h~ve regc..rd t.o the lJUblic int,.r1.;st etc., in exercisins his pow~rs, the law merely Nquires _h.:.m to ta.kc into consideration ··the· matters Listed in beet ion 9c(3) Cl?l-i.. "ln• oruer to 11 indic~tes the purpose for the exercise of the

powers, wh~reas having reg~rd to indicate the fuctors te is tu t~ke intu account in exercising his powers. Now these matt&rs he is required to have regard to are not the only matters\ these, as I sai<.l in D.Pi-' v. Yusuf Ivizee, are only a· guide to the Df>.i:> in the exercise of his powers. There may be several other matters he shuull.l have regard to but these listed. must always be h~d in 1.:in<.1 • .Uoer3 the LJ.l:'P then hc..ve to explain that he h~s · had reg~rd to the public interest, the interests of jw=.;tice and the need to prevent abuse of the local process when exercising the·powers vested in him under the CPA. As I said in Lif',l-' v. Yusuf Mzec 2 he does not. These matters he is require~ to have regard to c.tre, Eis I hine intlicated 1 for his guiu.ance. They ar!=,, so to s&y, p.:.rt of the raw .materials· for to exercise tne pow~rs. his 1..H:ci'siontL If th\; luw sc.tiJ the Df'r·, in th-e exercise. of his powers "shtdl act in .accordance with the -oublic int~:rest. t.he interests the int ere.st of justice etc." then the 111.:ed for him to explain whether he hc:.s so actecl in exercising his puweN woulu be arising ev(;ry time he exercisetl the powcrSo I hn-~d t.hat As the l",w stanc..s now, how<::v<::rL_he ..bes not hc..ve to st~te that he h~s h&d regard to public interests, ihtactsts of justice etc. Tben there are the pre,visions oi sub•of;ction6£ Section 90

.CPA. l t wus ccntended that becaus0 the D.i:-'P' E; exercise uf his ps,wers under ' bection 90 ,::.re not s'l.ttject to t:irecticns c,r control of any person only, courts 1 not being pE:rsons, can su0ject the Di'P to their di rec- tions and control. ~;1ith respect this is not so., Apart ·from mentioning that the DPP shall not be subject to the J.i re ct ions and, control of any other person, the ic1w also says that he shall exercise his own uiscr~tion. If it was int~ntled that courts coulu exercise control over the DPP 1 s exorcise of ~owers, the law woulu not h&ve expressed his uiscretionary exercisH of pow~rs . so emphatic terms. Also by omitting to -i~clude th~ word 11 0:uthorityn in sub-section 5 it does not foL.ow th--,t courts (:.;r~ em·pow0r1:d to direct or contnol th~ IJPP in the ex1,;:rcise of his 1.:>w0r.s; here '-'-ts~in, tht:re is no such clt:.:..r and specific provision us un~ finus jn the c~nstitution of B~rbGdos 1 (o~ction 111(10) for ~xc::..mplt: empowuring courts tc, qu~stion tb0 c:XL:rcisc: of pow,:ffs by the ,I ¥inally on t~is point, to my underst~nJin~, the ~irections an~'control provid1;:d for in ..:>actiun 90(5) CPA urc: not juL~iciul control or diraetions. Thuse ~re u~ministr~tive dir~ctions Ln<l iontr0l in th0 office of the DPf which i;;ithtr th,, .t>resiL1ent ur i'Jinisters of even t'0rr.i.-nE:nt b0Cr0tGri0s m.;:y wish to givo tc th~ DPPo '.!.:h(;

lc.1.w insulutes th0 D.Pl? from such directions or control Jxc~pt whurc they effi~n~te from the President. I um of the view th~,t 6E:ction 90(5) CPI\ hi~s nvthing to tio with juc.liciHl reTi0w, in the i~n1 Of t~~octions or control, of &Jministr4tiv€ action. It wns err.oneous therefore for .the District Court to c:tpply thut sub-se~tion .in .conferrine; upon itsalf the pow""rs to refuse to 1,:Jt the DPP take over .:,nd continue the proce~dings in this case. / In the final r._,sult ther<::fore 1 ~s was held i n ~ • Yusuf Hzce, ~n<l as it h&s been htld by our colle~gues in Ni6eria, and as is thE: position in C1;1nuda, with out the Charter of 1"ights, the ccurts have no powvr 'to rc:view the exercise of powt::rc: by t·he D.Pf undc:r b1::ction 90(1) CPtl. More so, ther~ is no power by tht courts tv prevent the DPP from ~xcrcising those powi:lrs as happened when hE: at (E:mptcd to exercise thu powers, in this c""se. 'l'his ctispc,se:s of the- issue of th!';: i:iXercise of pow1.;;rs by the !)Pf under tht: CPA. One oth'--r ground of compluint in th;;; 1.1.l?f'' s ptitition to ~his •ourt r;;;lc,tes to the_ m<An •. er thv cc::sc wus hi:l.ndleu by th1:: l.;&rn""d M&gi.str~te in th0 court bdlow. ~his is th0 first ground and it iS as follows:- 111. Thd lu~rnud Princip~l b~sident M~~Jstr~te miserubly failed to ex,;;rcist1 his juciciu.l pow"'rs jt,_c. iciously by• taking for cr~nted whatever

he Wbs told by th2 le&rned·advo,ate for ~he private pros.::cutir ther8by cauR0c'. miscc;;.rriage of justice tu the accus.,d p;.c:rsons an<l the uirector of Puhli• .?rosecuti0ns; such us:- · (a) when Jeliber~ting on ~he issue of service of summons t0 the occui::.ed the le&rned Prin~ipal k~sident Mugistrata purportedly avoided consi• d.1:;ring the previsions of section 101 of the I. Criminal Procudure Act, 1~85. (b) ~t no time did the priv~te prosocutor ever appear in court in p8rson untl the learned Princip~l rt&eident M~gistr~t~ tre~ted th~ luarned ndvocute c.1.s if h~ were the privat~ pros~cutor. (c) 'l'he le~;rJle.cl .l:'fip<;_i'p9-l 1:t;9t9~~t N,4-gi§l!flJt~ mc._Je t~ , •• • , 1 f '/ I ~; 1 ; • • ·,. f J;- f '. • . 'i1Ul1Y c_o~.~~A~~- (j~ ~~~,t uol mn t t t; l'S t v~~ h-i~~i ~~~~ th~ leurnu~ btute att0rney Mr~ Komey~, the OCD of Oysterb<A¥ f'olic~ &toti0n, the ElCCU9_e_q p~fijQJHh the 1Jetvit\e o~ ~,~-~- f:\~.~'4'[j·~-"-'·1>, ~'t,~~9A~: -·~,{ \~cui giving chance ~o the ~Jfectod etc t 11 !~-~~r.i, · ~9 9,~. ·h_~p.f4 Thdsq c0mpla1ntij Q~YiP~l~f r~+~~ij to inter ulia, th! fA;lqlJff p~S8c:q~e ir+ the jµ<.lgrnent o*' the +~HVFn?4 ll!§¼~;,tr~t~r~ "In t°GciC:.ing "l"h~t;her thif.5 Gn&e is to be ~rosE:1cute4 l:>:r a p:,ivate prosecutqf '?r P_¥ rPf:l !?fr 4 !5P,.lii-n i;a}te ip.to c0n3ideration the provifliop. o;t fi~ctf.on ,f.-. 90(.3) (3) ot: CPA •• • 1' ... which sh.tes thut 'in

exerciai_ng _h;i.s poweri::; unct~r _qi~ 9;F\~ th; D.1:t shai.i <lo ,sc, in or4er t0 protect· p4pli_c :i;n:~~X'.,aa,t·, in thu interest of justide an~ ih order t0 prevent tht abuse of th<:: 11:gal process. c~n on~ say th&t thu ~-~.P. wants to t~ke over pros~cution ' p~ this case so as to ~roteit pUblic_ interest or~~ the iJter~~t 0£ jtist!ije.or in orJer to pre;~p~ abu$e. cf th~ L~t:,ai 1~rocess~ JJ:r • .Lamwo.i hae:i 1.:.~gµ0U tn'".t tit~ cifo\imsi.~nc-e e,f this case ho.ve shown ~l1i.t ih<: ~.l:-.P·1 s·· ihtt!~_j:iop ~~ for · ~-. h. h::.ith0r of the: ab~ve ml!n°\'.icheJ L.ctors~ I agte0 ~itM ~f~ ~~i~ai thn~ t~e 6ii6bmst&nc~~ ~hich h.vc ~u~tcunued this c~~b hu~e ~isquQliii~d Ehe PPf ifo~ taking cv~i t~~ ~foseciution oi this base; Fcfr in the fif~t :Plc:-~e the d: .½ respect shown by the DPPi s oi'f~Ct..rS c'.rid the police offic1.::rs; ;:nuer wfiom the accueed persons a.hi i;iofklrigt is eri6ugh pr·, ,f that ~he DP.P's inte;.; ntion to take c/ti·E.r prosecution of :his c~se is not iri the interest cf justice bht to ~uppre~1 justic~i Fci~ in the first plac<:: the police offic~rs wJ1 j w0rk hancl iii h&n<l with DPP refused to al::.ow thfi sµmmc•s ,;f til.is c-ourt to b~ SeJ!-'le-4 upon the accused. Iv fae-t e. &tc,.te 1-,ttorney (Komeye) ;.;.n(l thE: DP.P "'ill nuthing,_ from tht: UPP's Office m~ae sure thLt the actus d p~rsons did •ot enter the court room, nlthough they h~d

come to court ·pre- . mises on 18th September, 1989. ,:i,.; himself came to the coutt room and left tham in the public prosecufor's office. There is l:in affic.lavit t0 th&t effect. anJ th1:; s~mt: State Httorn1:y came to court anJ. stated that hE: diJ not know· where ·th~ accuse9- pc::rson• Wdr~. The court ~as nbt told why it w&s treated with such c~ntempt. I., , .. ,... Not only that the c uurt was further ridicUletl when it issueJ warrants of arrest (aft6r the accuaed persons haJ refused to obey c:<.Ccus~d bumr.1ons; an.;.; · JJObou.y efiect0~ them. 'l'he accused persons were nut arrested anu they came to c0urt and sat away from the rest of the accused persons, as frE-:e m,n. Furth0r more, after the cc,urt haJ. orderecJ. on 20th ~eptember, 1989, that 1st, 4th and 5th accused sh0~12 remain in custoJy for want of relia~le surGtie~ later, accordinG to the st&tement filed herein by t~e court cl0rl:,· t~e uCli Kincrn.,oni, who h&J acc.ompanied the accused persuns to cou.~t, went an;.; c·rcler0,.l the :ocurt c1er.k tu write out bail ·.. \ bonus for these accused. These three accus~cl were biven bail without court order, but on the cru.1::r of the OCD of h:incmc.oni. Up to now the court oruer shows·that these thr~e accuse<l art! to be rema.ncletl in custody. 1'hese police 0ffic 1:,rs who c:.re trec1.ting the court with such disr.espect ~re the ona3who the DP? w&nts to entrust the

inv1:,stigation of this case when he the UP~ takes ov~r the pros~cution of this case. One will expect ncthing except suppression of justice. :further the complaint of brutality is &g inst the poi ice offic0rs, who wel'e interrogati~g the. cc;mplqin"'nt_ for the purpose of criminal inv9pti 0 ation •. Criminal investigation is part and parcel of the office of the DPP. Ht le&st the two <lepartments suppliment each other • .::>o n~turall_y ihe Ifft' may be obligr;:cl t~ prctec,~ them. i~fter all even if he, the j~P; takes over the prosecution of this case, who will do the investi ation for him if the investigat~r3 themselves are in- 0 vole,u in the case, th&t is tc say, the inveEt igata,rs themselv.:s are ·the accused personsi 11 I uo not, for my part, unLLi=rstantl it to be th,, rul1:: that it is .;.gainst proper juuicial con~uct in court to continually agree with, oun~el for one si~e- in a case.· Certainly the counsel with whom the court does not .;ree may feel aggriev~d, but if the counsel.with whom the court agrees presents all .he time what that court consider• to be c-0rrect viewa or points, there is no reason w·11 the court should not ·agree with him throughout a c;i.se, from bee,inning to end., It j; ace;ordin 0 ly not ef.:.sy for·me to give a sanction to the criticisms levelled &~&inst ~he learned magistrate by the ~PP in the fir~t £rounJ of appeal in his petition of

appdal. However, the pasaage fr0m the juJgment of the 11agistrate which I hb.ve repro- duced .above(plus someot~~r aspects of proc0a<lings Jf the case) show matters which may be grounds for justifiable criticisms of the manner in which this case was ha.n<lled in the co·urt below. '.!:he procet;clin 5 s inJic. tf: thut the advocate for the compl~in~n~ appe&rs to have upplied himself to th~ case with u~briJled ~gour. " ., He exerted a lot of pressure and force on the oourt and the polioe authorities, so much thE.1.t things c:J.ppear to h&ve bt:t:n mi.iue to move ut, to borrow & pop1,lur phrc..se of Idd kmin, "a ~upcr sonic Speed." As sh0wn ulr1.::.::i.dy; ·;h,; victim of tht,; ul eged e.s13oult, Elisent Mwo.nga, for exampl~, is ~llt:b~d to h~va been LSSkultcd on 7th beptember, , . 1989. ' : The complaint u;uinst thi polJct: offic~re who were ~lleged to h~ve .ilSot...ulted him w .. s filed on J6th b~p_tembcr 1 1989, only c.bout a week lnter •. Then ths court issued summonses f~r·th1.:; ~ccus~d to &ppc~r on 18th b\alptemb~ r, 198~,, m&tter· of only two u&ys later. On 20th Septemb0r, 1989, again only two tl"ys lnt~r warrLnts for the arrest of th~ae accused police ofiioia _s weri:: is.su0u. by the court., I clo nut untlerstand both court c.tnd pu~iJb matters to move so swiftly and in the Circumstances I _cc:..nnot s;.;.y i;h0 police authorities \'.'.ere to blame for the mattdrs

which the lc:.:.rnc:<l m. . gistr.:.. te now com:filc.ins ubout in his ju~gment ~ There was no ch&nc(:: gii "'n to them to compr,;,ht.:nll tp"' matter cn<l decide on how or what to u.o aJe:t.t it.. 'l'he police ,officials- accused cf the assc.ult were their own men; they.coultl not therefore hav0 acted with the automation of m~chines to arrest them an~ bring them to court. They shouffid hnve b~en given ~ime to assess ind an&lyse the whole-matter before-.depiding what action to take in tht! mutter or in r,.spect of the accU;.,ed police ofiic1us .. · .,ft,;,r all, the v~ctim of the 8llegec. assault, }!;lis&nte Mwanga, was also un ..is;r investigcttions for crimes. That is why he was in police hands and a:lso p~rhaps why the alleged ~ss~ults wer~ inflicted on him. W~s his mat·:~r to bi giv~n up bcc&use of wh~t the six police officers ur~ ulleg~d to have done to him? In my o:1inion c:..n<l on ·the wh0li::; this cas,, w1...s hc:ndiE::d with unnecessary hast-=, hust,:.~ i:..l.Dc.l tumult in the court below,. •rht: co.n1=;1-~~uence was th.: conflict which arosb batwd ~ the police autt:citie~ ~~d the court. '\ Needless to say 1 it is import~nt for cuurts cf law to &fproach their juu.icial wo".'k with uplumb, bt:...h. nce, dignity : n-J. ·rcstr~int and avoidance· 1:1nnecessury c0nf:liti::ts with otht:r org6'ns of s', te,. '.L'his is the: only way in which t·1~y c~n exert thuir ~uthu~ity

oY~.· ~hcso other brgans of st3.te. Ma:1y thints cuuiLl httv1;; bt-cn dop.1;; by .- he cvurt below to uvert the J.npleusun:t; situ,,+-.io,.,.' '··' · '· h,,,c; bi~ i-. crt-c.,h,cl by this case ' inv0lvi11g tht: court und the police force,. : have in..2.icated sume above ant.~ anoth0 c:- w0ulu hav1.:; be:-.:n service of sum1. ns on the accused in faccort1ance with s.104 Criminal Pr~cotlure kct which prcvtJes:- 11104 where the person sumiuoned is in t:c, cctive service of any (.t::partment of thu Gov1;;rnm1::ilt ~ or c/ a public corpor~tion, the court issuing tht:: summons shll.~.l ordinarily send it in dkplicbte to th0 he&cl 0f the depar~ment or public corpo- n:ttion, aa the case mo.y 1:e, :i. n wb·i:h sue~ P1r;r-son_is so· e:::nploys::tl ancJ. such u he<-·d shall tbere_upon c<'use th 7 summons bt- .servE:d in th0 manner ~rovidE::d 1,y sectioh 102 &n<l shall ruturh it to th~ cuurt_,·.nJer his ,c,i~natur·e with the endorsement required . by · hat sectiono 11 i-i.noth,,r way out woult.1 have be0-n .to consiu.er· the seriousness of • the matter~ Th0re is no denying· th&t there are cases which are s~nsitive er serious an<l those which &r~ not. Where six police officers wcr~ involvetl the ld6rned o~gistr~te should_h&ve considered the case sensi.-:ive and shuulu not have ac:rt:<-d to permit t_he complainant to prose<'u~e 'the case priv&tely. A st:nsitive m&ttdr such as this one shoulu

not h&v0 b<:::1::n left to privute entt:rpris<;; especially after the· 1~~ a~pe1· ed to tak~ it over • .Foi· E'll the fur,.-q:';t,iI'l.6, reasons_, I allow, the appeal by the DPP. , qu(;l.sh _1:.n•. set asicte the rulint of the f-rincipal .tlesident Maeistrate. .refusinf th0 i/1:'.e to let him t.:.:.k~ ov8r unu. continue the pro~ecution - of the 1;ase instituted by th8 compla.inc:.nt; a.nuLuire.ct that he: should be· allu.ved to t.s.ke ov0r and continue the s&ic:;. proceedings. or case. Mr. MEtupa, State Attorney, for the app~llant, ~r. Li.mwai_, for the respondent. 1 I