19890729 TZCA Mwanza1

J L.T MWl.NZA C::lJJiilil:L L.P.P:C:;L NO~ 29 .OF 1989 TIDJ DITSCTOn OF PUB~IC PROSECUTIONS~ • • o "f l.Pl?m.,uJ;TT v::rrsrrs 1..NDllDW P:C:Il,IP lIDYiliJL.. • • ., o .~ a ., o • o .,E]SPON:DENT (Lppeal fron tho conviction of the High Court of Tanzania at l'!usot1a (Mun,ycra. J. ) dated the 17th day of Deccnber, 1988 in Dconoraic Crine Ca.so No. 21 of 1987 JUSGNilllNT OF Tm) COOilT ' · Ti:.J(LJ,'IIJ2 J oL.o l This is an appeal by tho Director of 'Public Proe~ou""'ions aga.ins:tt;:tho decision of the Econo□ic Grines Court sitting at Mu.soma n.nd prosi.dod ovor by ~.1unyora., J. in which tho respondent, J'JillrlG!~ FITil,Il' MOYLHJL,., wn.s acquit1-.od.. Ile had boon ch0Xg0d with soliciting a br1bc of shs. 30,000/- and receiving sh~. 20,000/- corrupt non0y in connection with a cnso·hc was trying nnd had c::.djournod for judgcno_nt in his ccpacity as District M.::i.gistrato $tationed ~t }Iusonr:.o Tho r..opublic fol t tlw.,t tho respondent should he.w boon convicto.d on l)oth counts, hence this c.ppoal which was nrgu.od before us_ by Mr. Me.lenslu,,_, ..rn0d State Attorney 0 Mr. Kct~balwa, lor.rned advocnto, appo&od for tho respondent. The r,1or:J.orandur.i of Lppon~ consiet,<?d of ;t'ou;r grounds' but be.sj.cally thb conl'.)lo.int in it nnd in tho sub □issions by tho lcro-nod. Sta.to 1..ttorno;y- is thD.t had the trial court catofully nsscssod tho ovidonco before it 1 it would

hcve reached tho conclusion that tho :t'Ospondont had connittod the two offon.co.s ~god. Like tl'J.e lny nonbcrs who sat with hin, tho lom'ncd txial judge wn.s not s2..tisfiod by tho evidence of soliciting. Tho hub of tho Prosecution case we.s tho tostinony of :r.w .2 JJJD/.LI.J:JI BUDODI, one of tho tbrco Mara Co-opcrntivos w~tchnon whoso theft case tho respondent was hoc.ringa Ile said thct ho leorni; that the respondent wanted money ,boforo dcli-ror1_ng tho judgncnt. Tho respondent kept on postponinc tho delivery of tho jud.c,'Cpllni; nnd the nossn.go wes that he wanted noncy., Before tho accused persons cvontu.Or1,.ly not wi-th tho respondent at a pluco cnllod Toga Guest Ilousc ho had C½l'Cc...d.y ... __ 2 - rocoivcd shs.0 1,000/- fron tho throe c.,ccJ.sod persons,- tbrough o. oc-.n cc,lled ., .,,, C?'U:.Il SUlIUNI who told then t11...,,t tho respondent wc..ntod 1 sonothing! before delivering tho judgonont. Sw:runi did not, however, o.ppoo.r before tho court to testify c..boi.t this noncto.ry prelude to tho Toge. Guest ~cuso rendezvous, nor is shs. 1;000/..., ncntionod by P$W.9. It wo.s cllogod that ct the Guest Ilousc tho respondent \ o.skcd for 30 round iron bo.rs or shs.30fooo/- n.nd when the nccusod persons si'..id they did not hr;vo c:ny of thoso, or a.nything, tho respondent scid "Slmuri yonu 11 c,nd. loft tho plccc in o. huff. We desire to pc:uso hero o.nd o:x:cnino

whc,t PoW.9 G:JllV/...S 0NDSIM0 tho only other wctohoc.n who grwo evidence for tho Prosecution so.id of this nllogod conforonco • /..ccording to P ~ W~ 9 the respondent' o.skod for thirty :round bt:rs, or thirty be.gs of conont, or thirty corr'llo>?[l,tod iron sheets, or shs. 30,000/-_, but ovontunlly settled for shsf\ 5,000/- fron co.ch of throe , c.rrmsed persons, thc.t is c.. totc.l of shs. 15,000/~o· So tho lo11I'nod tricl juclac r.... ,.::ocl hioself, o.s wo hc,vo to, nnc'.. do, wlmt if nny, wns tho bribe solicited? It is not just o. question of vc.rin.nce between vo.rious donr.:.nds or itcos solicited, / . •A. ti.. t is norc f'undcnonto.l t:C.o.n thc.t, it is a quest:i.on of vorooi ty and rolicbili t;y: \1 of tho Prosecution story. Mro Ma,lc.r.1shn. Bll6[,"0Stoc1 thc,t tho dishnrnony night be bocc.use of tho :).ong :pa,ss8.£"C of tine. With respect, we do not feel we. cn.n troc.,t tho cliffo1:oncos so lightly oursolvos? Ls thouch tho foregoing wo.s not onoueh, Dudodi goos on to ncntion o. yo:t different sur.1 to the Marn. Ilogiono.l Crine Officer P.,W. 1 Senior Superintendent SCB. .:.STUN ?1:JIDD, who cvontunlly c.rrc.nc.;-cd for tho trnp noncy. If, cs PoWol snys 1 Budcdi told hio tho respondent hGd initio.lly a,skod for thirty round iron bcu-s or shs.30,ooo/~ cash but ovontunlly settled for sl1s,. 20,000/- n.nd oven ~cnt clown to tho conpcrc..tivoly noc:ost sun of shs.

10,000/~, why then civo hin shs. 20,000/-rl It is noteworthy '.t P. W. 2 docs not to.lk of tl:o respondent sec.line his dono.nd down below shs. 30,000/-, so why wc.s P ..W~2 confident thnt tho respondent would n.cco:pt tho lessor sun of st1s. 20,000/-, and why1 if his....n.JJ cgod J>.tory--to...P-.U...1-·wc.s truthful, dicl ho 2,sk for twice cs rruch v..s tho oc1ount of shs, · 10,000/- the rospomlcnt wns propo.rod to nc.kc do with? With respect, we a,grdo with Mr •. Kde,bo..lwa. tho.t there wo..s roo..soncble doubt n.s to whether there wn.s rmy soliciting ct ell. We m-o satisfied thnt tho trial court did not err in acquittine tho respondent on tho count of solicitiTIG n bribu, Consequently we clisniss tho Republic's D..ppoo.l on Ground 1. Now cones tho second 2,llocc.tion 1 that tho respondent received a bribe of shs. 20,000/- r,s o.forosnid. Mr. Mc.la1shn. urgocl us to finc1 tho.t there wo.s erodible evidence iuing to prove tho chnrgc to the stcnc1.ru:-d required. Tho c.llogntion wt:1s thct tho respondent received tho shs. 20,000/- fron the hanc.1.s of ?.W .2 in tho respondent's Chnnbors r',t tho court house, !Io then rolc.yod it to his dnuchtcr P..W., 7 l:..GN:s MlTYJ.NJl'~ who denied tho cllocr.tion in court but .···-&-~:! 3 '· whoso oyic1onco need not dote.in us, nnd whic\1 we co.nnot c,t o.11 consider, as she wns trc2..tod· c..s 2.. hostile wi tnoss. L.ccording to Mr 0

Mc..looshn tho tostinony of FoW.2 wc.s natorin.lly corroborc..ted by thct of P.W.3 l.SP SIMON :MIRUMDO, P19 W.4 L.ST DLVID_ S~IBUL, r.nd PoW .8 D/SGT 11./..PH.'.JJL LYDm, tho tl:.roo police o;ff'iccrs who so.id they pa.rticipatod in tro.pping tho responclont~ 011 tho other hc.nd Mr. Kc.tc..bo.iwc. subni ttod tho..t there· wore so Llc.ny vo.rious inconsistencies thnt the trio.1 court cculd not possil)ly have convicted~ With rdspoct, we would not Mcopt every li ttlo trivial d_i;fforcnco c.nd ninutic.. n.s boinc enough to dotrc10t fron the rolio.bility of any otherwise coeont and credible pi'Osocution case~ We lmvc o.skod ourselves, l:owovor, a.s to whothci• tl:o d.ifforonccs in tho evidence of tho relovn.nt witnesses in support of tho soconc. count cc.n be said to be inconseq_uontial'l In tho context of this or.so wo CZ'O uncble to cgroG with Mr. Katdx1ltm thct exn.ctly yrhc,t 1-ms so.id between P.W • 2 anci \ the respondent in his Clmnl1crs - tho proci.~o wo:rds, was nn.toria.l. We propose to consider only tho inportmit no.ttcrs. Bgfore the cllcgod nooting outside ~nd inside tho respondent's Chv.nbers there was tho alleged ~ppointnont nt the ros11ondcntt s house when wd whore tho rcs_pop.dont was coing to rocoivc tho bJJi"be. It is conr.1on ground that there wns no such nooting a.t tho respondent's house. Tho witnesses who ec.vo oviclcnce regarding this n.bortivo rendezvous were

tho kinG-pin P •W. 2 Budodi, P. We 3 l{irur.11.Jo tho police officer in imodfr..to charge of tho 2-ctua.1 opore,tion, I.BP Sa.ibul P"W .4, ci.nd P.W .8 thq Dotoctivo Ser~nnt. Lot us tnkc a look nt their stories. J~ccorcling to Budod~! the a.greed tine was 7. 30 c..:i:1. hut they could not nclco it until 7., 45 O.o r:1. When hq 2.nd tho police got thoro . -they were told tho.t the respondent ho.d gone tp tho hospital~ The hospi tn.l is inciu.ento.lly whore the responclent told tho t~in.l court ho wont to froo hone. We sl:-.r,.11 cone b1:..ck to this !I They- went to tho re spornlont' s Chanbers n.nd found th~t tho respondent ho.c1. not yet got the;ro~ Tho rosponclont o.rrivod about twenty nirrutes late: with a girl (who we know was P~W~.7) and after n. l;)ricf groetinc; the respondent n.ncl his c1n°U.[5hter entered tho rcsppndont's Chc.r.1bcrs, followocl by ! 0 Wo2. P.W o 2 eo,ve the respondent nn cnvolopo contn.ininc tho trap noney, shs. 20,000/- c.nd the respondent received iti At tho ro.spondcnt 1 s cor.11,c.nd PoW.2 quickly ronovod hinsolf fro□ tho ~oon .o.nd once ho cot aµtside he gn.vo tho ncrcod signal to tho Police" Now P:.Wo2 1 s posture a.t tho vital nonent: PoW .. 2 s:nid ho knol t down and this was "so thc..t nobody could sec i1r'·1.? According to sore Prosecution evidence P.,W o2 clicl. not succoocl in. his clcsiro that nobody. should soc it. It ~ soon, H wc..s soon

by P •U. 3 Mirunbc who dic1 not soc P .11. 2 kneeling down, and by P 0 Wo3 w2,s says he, P.W .. 3 was ste.ndµig cbout two or three feet froo tho rospondont' s table. Po W. 3 sr,,ys ho saw Pf Wo 2 ifbilo Givine tho nonoy to the responc1ont. "Ilo clicl so stc.nding not thd he kncl t down". Fron two or tbJ.•oe feet, not two or tr.:.ree pMos oven, P~w.3 did !:<4 soc the respondent givo the :::ono;r to his dc,uchter. Ono nay surnise tho.t P_,.Y.,.J·told_ tho tr-uth on. this. o.spcc-i, ,,-- - for otherwise he, P.Wo3 would not have bothered to sonrch tho respondent's clrc..we·rs, 1)ooks I etc. 1 1Jofore ho ordered tho child girl to be sl'3tl.\'chod. J.:nd there could be no question of tho kneeling or erect P.Wo2 obstructing P.W 0 3's vtow 1:,oco..usc tho lrnooling or oroot P.W .2 11<.'l.(1 alroc.dy left the rooo otherwise he . •ould. ! . l:c.vo seen tho respondent trc..nsforrina tho nonoy to his c'l.o.ughtor.,. P,.w.,4 So.ibul is rmothor person who.was -standing e..t o. :window of tho rosponclcnt~s Ch&1bor~. ''I wns sto.nc1.in;s nt c window, about ton papos fron b.is t-.Jloo I could soc cloa.rly through tho window~" But P.w.,4, n. senior Police Officer like P.W,3, did not soc P.Wo2 Giving mzyi;hing to tho respondent. Ile saw tte kncoli!lg/oroct I·.w.2, not kneeling or'·. erect, but bondilY{ :· . . boforo tho respondent, we sup:i;ioso .. . •.·; oouninG bowinc; to the letter. Ilo

ccncloocd th2.t P.W.2 ho.cl Given. tho respomlont 11 tho ooney. 1 know 1:.c wr.s handing tho bribe money to tho accused".. Like Po W., 3,. ho C:id not sec ti10 respondent eivc the r.1onoy to the e,irl 0 According to P.,w.·8 D/Sgt., Lyioo, it would o.ppeo.r tlmt ho so.w oost. 'Unlike P.,W. 3 who wa.s a. IJcre two or throe feet frora tho rospondontt s table, ? ., l[ .8 nppc..rontly occupied c. nore van:tago position fron sono nino po.cos fron a window. Ile sc.w tho hancli11t3" over the uonoy to tho re spondont by r .1-1'. 2 who wns noi thor knooline nor crcuching, tho rosp~ndcnt t: ,urine ono end of tho onvolo)?O 2-nd, finally, g:iving tho onvolopc to tho childo Wo lmve gone into the sali9nt dctaiis of this portion of tho Prosecution ov"idoncc so o..s to n:pprocic,to bettor tho sharp relief into which tho Prosecution version is thrown by tho Def once versio:n, 0 I 1:.ccordinc to tho respondent, fron hone ho· wont to tho hospi tn.l to truce his a.stlmatic d2:.ur;htcr, P.n. 7, to soc i'.1 Dr~, 9loci, c Child s:poc~M!t Dr 0 Olooi had u lot of pc.tionts and when ho broke off to co to tl:e Ilogional Block whore ho was wanted ho noticed tho l)rosenco of tho rosponc.ont., Ile told tho respondent to co away and cono buck nftor one hour_o Tho respondent therefore wont to his Cho.nbors with tl:o child to awo.i t tho appcintnont with Dr Q Oloni t Dr, Olor.1i s, accordin,e to t!10

Prosecution~ WD,!3 indo9d the ono who countocl tho n,lloced l)ri"bo noney upon tho respondent's oxTost1, We po.use hero to look r:~, the Defonce e. " . . i j iesaw .: so far-. Tho respondent sc.ys ho left hone to tclco P.W. 7 to tho hospital, and tho.hospital is whcr.e ,· P~Wo2 so..ys thoyworo told at tho respondent's hone tho respondent hc,d cone to. Tho .respondent tolls of his o;oiDG to tho hospital o.nd. whn.t Dr. 01,ooi told hio. ~~ Dr. 01oni is indeed c.t tho scone when tho respondent; is e.rrostodo To us tho sio1ifioru1co of •.'· this is thc..t fror.1 tho cvidon.cc of Flore li.nthony PoW 06 wo clean, o.nd tho rosJ_)ondont confirns, that tho Distr;i.c:t Court is noaJ.' tho IlcGionel Block whore tho respondent se:.ys Dr'l Oloni at the hospi tc.l tolcl 1:in ho was eoinc; to. , ... ·-. --·· - 5 Uc cove on, wcl wo proniso to bo brisk,, Tho rospondont told tho tricl court thc,t ho he.cl his dm.1ehtor sit outside c.s sho wcs fooling unwell so ho wc1,ntcd her to got 'sonc fro sh dr. Tho Def~nco wrsion is tlmt P .u • 2 (S2:vo tho r.1onoy t<? tho cirl P.W~7, outsid0 there, to deliver to her fc.thcr, tho respondent, telline h0r it w~s n, lettor 1, she should hide it, and givo iii to her fc..tl:or. This story is eivan by DL.VID MICIIt.DL D" Wo 3, n, person who scys ho wo.,s present there ricrht fron before tho tine tho respondent a.rrivcd thoro th2-t norninc, and th::..t he only

know the rospon9-ont fron the tine tho respondent bcec~n to hear o. re.po cnsc in which D,:W .3~s wife wns tho conplninc.t. Tho respondent sc..ys tho first tine ho snw tho qnvolopo wo.s when his do.uehtor wc,s scc.rchcd, o.,ftor the Police he.cl unsucce~sfull;y- scc.rchod his Cht.r:1bcrs 7 and ho did · \\Ot ·· t ·.:now wl:cro -1:is de.ughtor, who h...1.d boon s~ ttinc outsido o..s D_o W. 3 sc.id, cot . ~. it fl.'0.0• Connect De W., 3' s evidence with thn.t of a. prosecution wi tncss, tho 11UXso FLOlll:.. 1.JTTTIOlJY P.n.6. Wo have o:i:cnincd P&Wf'6rs tcstinony uith seriousness r..nd 2ro::.ious co...re11 There is no c,-ottin~ 2,w2.y fror;i tL.e clear inprossion, tho,t c-,ccordi!lG to hor, the c;irl h;.:,..c:1 boon outside tho roan when she, P .. W.~6, wcs ce,llod to soro-ch hor. Sh0 hc..d boon trc,nsn.cting sono :p0rsonnl business c.t tho J!.orrioncl. Dovolopncnt Director's Office ond c1s she wc,s wn.lkinc a,wo.y 11 Just c..s tho District Court Office I s~w ncny poopio in. I saw a, t~rl child bo~ 11 forced insiclo tho nC{;istrnte•s office,. ••••• Sho wn.s invited into t:b_e r.:k.~strc..to's Chcnbors where she sc;w Dr. Oloni nDO!lG othqr ,pooplo. "Thora Wl.',S n. policonc.n pointine c. pistol towa..rds tho r.1o..c-istrc1to· "1'ho :was si ttinc on llis cha.iro ~1erc 1-ms c, Girl stcnding in front of the r,1D.i3istrn.to tronblinc c..ncl crying., & •••• •" It w_c,s this Girl tho

witness P.W.6 wa.s MlcocL.to.. _soc..rch,, She sca..rchod tho cirl c.nc1 found hor with rui onvolopo in her riGht hn.nd which wo..s bonen.th her kl.J..cnca.. T:t.o envelope hc:.d nonoy, thore is no controversy c.bout this •.,,,_ We now uish to turn to tho envelope i tso.1f·1 o.ncl consider tho evidence , of throe people a,oout it. Tho people c.ro: P.,W\'.'.8 D/Set. Rnphc..ol Lyioo, P. lT. 6 tho .mll~so, and tho thirdly, the respondent hinsolf. For the exercise wo slmll nlso l"ocruit in aid tho tostinony of PoW..,l who anvc PoW.2 tho tra.p nonoy. Lot us stt;U't with PeW.,6 nnd lot her say it herself: I "She ( tlmt is the girl child) wc.s holdine it on her ric3'ht hand., I pulled off tho rulibcr ba.nd a.ncl opened the 0nvclopc. I found c.notho_r ''. ....... whi to po..por in which 200/- notes wore wrc..ppcdu.,.. .,, .., o .'' Wo 0,sk, whct'G ....... did tllis rubber bend cone fro□? Where did P..vt~2 eot tho 0nvolope in which tho wTappor contninine tho noney wus put? Surely not fron PoW.l froci which P.'W,,2 c;ot the currency notes. P,,w.1es evidence. is loud end elem- thc..t 6 "After countinc t],:ie notes I '1-r.rc..pped then in n po.per n.nd ho.nded the pn.ckc.ce to Budodi." Who put the wra.pper in an envelope, r:.nd wl:10,t was he hopinc; to c,chieve? Wa.s it s6 tlmt it nny look just like a. letter, n.nd if so why? Ii. W. 3 sc..w c.. letter n.nd sc.id P. W(12 told the girl it

w2-s a, letter which she should deliver to lier fo.ther; but hide it first, which is whc.t Po Wo6 found Pollo? doine. Like P.Wo6, tho respondent s11ys tho envelope wa,s inta.ct. P.W.8 docs not sc..y so. Ile so..ys the respondent opened one end of the envelope. "I sc.id I sc.w the n.ccusod receive the envelope. Ho tore it n.t ono end o.nd hnd a. glir.1pso of its contents. Then he pn.ssec1. the envelope to his child. 11 One T.my wonder, o.s. we do, why tho respondc:mt shouldr in his Chcn1::ors, nnd with so rm.ny people c.round, wc.nt to havo a. glin:pso of whnt ho know wa.s bribe noney to hio, if indeed ho had tho tenerity, audacious rascn.lity, end ra.shness, to receive bribe nonoy there? With respect, we n:ro uno.r.-le to diso..groe with tho trio.l Econooic CriIJOS Court which acquitted tho respondent on this socond co1mt c.s well~· Tho whole thine loaves a sour t2.sto in tho nouth, nnd.nc.kes us wonder if soncono wr...s not just tryinc to ir.1plicc..to o..nd fix tho respondent. Who.t we do not wonder a.bout, c.nd a.re vory sure of, is thc.t the 1·0 spondent ! s c.llogod (!,'Uilt wcs not proved.beyond ro~somblo doulJt. On second thoUGht, c.nd boc~uso of the forogoinc, wo feel wo need not bother to consider tho discro:pc.ncies n.bout who wont to the respondent's house, when, nnd whn.t hn.ppcnod there, before the convoreonce nt tho respondent's Cho.i:iucrs. We would just be squnndorinc effort. . .~ :.~;_-::..~·-...:,, \. ~. ~."' 4::, E1 .t\ .:;;· "'---'<. We c1.isi:liss.--thc·-appcu-l~y the Director ·of Public Prosecutions ontirof,y. Dl~Tµ9 .~t MW{.N_Zl~. ti;iii\?i~l7- do.y. of July 1 1989 • ·.·· .: • I Lo M. Ml..K:,ME JUSTICE OF L.?PEJ:.L R. TI. KISJ.NGA JUSTICE OF 1:.PPEl.L. A. M. 1~" o:riu.n JUSTICE OF 1..P?~ ··-----~ 1 - - --· ..