ELIA ANANIA MBISE FINAL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE SUB-REGISTRY OF MWANZA AT MWANZA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 31667 OF 2024 ELIA ANNANIA MBISE……………………………..………………………….APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC…………………………………………………………………….. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 20/3/2025 & 28/3/2025 ROBERT, J:- This appeal arises from the judgment of the District Court of Magu in Criminal Case No. 000029879 of 2024, wherein the appellant, Elia Annania Mbise, was convicted and sentenced to a fine of TZS 7,000,000/= upon his own plea of guilty to the offence of publication of a statement with the intent of bringing hatred to lawful authority, contrary to section 52(1)(c) of the Media Services Act, Cap. 15, and seditious offences under section 53(1)(c) of the same Act. Dissatisfied with both the conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal, raising the following grounds: 1. That the Honorable Trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by admitting exhibits which were not read out to the appellant. 2. That the Honorable Trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by convicting and sentencing the appellant based on an equivocal plea. 1 3. That the Honorable Trial Magistrate erred in law by imposing an excessive sentence on the appellant. At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant was represented by Mr. Erick Mutta, learned counsel, while the respondent was represented by Ms. Hellena Mabula, learned State Attorney. During submissions, the appellant abandoned the second and third grounds of appeal and opted to argue only the first ground. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court admitted exhibits, namely the certificate of seizure (Exhibit P3), the letter requesting an investigation of mobile communications (Exhibit P4), the investigation report (Exhibit P5), and the caution statement (Exhibit P6), without reading out their contents in court. He argued that this omission prejudiced the appellant's right to a fair hearing, as he was unable to understand the contents of the exhibits and challenge them if necessary. Counsel contended that, if the said exhibits were expunged from the record, the remaining evidence would not sustain a conviction. He, therefore, prayed for the conviction and sentence to be set aside. In response, Ms. Mabula, learned State Attorney, opposed the appeal, arguing that since the appellant unequivocally pleaded guilty to the charge, 2 the failure to read out the contents of the exhibits did not vitiate the conviction. She relied on the case of Frank Mlyuka v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 404 of 2018 (unreported), in which the Court of Appeal held that the failure to read out documentary exhibits in a case where the accused has pleaded guilty is not fatal. She also cited Matia Barua v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2015 (unreported), reinforcing the position that exhibits do not need to be tendered where a conviction is based on a guilty plea. In his rejoinder, Mr. Mutta insisted that the exhibits should have been read out, as they were central to the facts of the case. He submitted that each case should be decided on its own merits and that, in this case, the circumstances warranted the reading of the exhibits. The sole issue for determination is whether the trial court’s failure to read out the exhibits after admission rendered the conviction unsafe. The law on conviction based on a plea of guilty is well settled. In Laurent Mpinga v. Republic [1983] TLR 166, the Court of Appeal outlined circumstances under which a conviction based on a plea of guilty can be interfered with on appeal: 3 a) If the plea was imperfect, ambiguous, or unfinished and the trial court erred in treating it as a plea of guilty; b) If the accused pleaded guilty as a result of mistake or misapprehension; c) If the charge failed to disclose an offence recognized under the law. d) If the facts admitted did not disclose an offence. In the present case, the record reveals that the charge was read and explained to the appellant, and he responded unequivocally, stating, "Ni kweli" (It is true). The court proceeded to enter a plea of guilty and called upon the prosecution to present the facts of the case. The facts read out included the details of the alleged offence, the messages sent, the investigative process, and the evidence gathered. The appellant admitted the facts as true, leaving no room for doubt about the unequivocal nature of his plea. The appellant’s main contention is the failure to read out the contents of the exhibits after admission. It is true that reading out exhibits is a procedural safeguard to ensure the accused understands the evidence against him. However, in cases where an accused has pleaded guilty, the necessity of reading exhibits is diminished unless the exhibits introduce facts 4 beyond what the accused has admitted. This position was affirmed in Frank Mlyuka and Matia Barua (supra), where the Court of Appeal held that failure to read out exhibits in a guilty plea does not vitiate the conviction. The appellant has not demonstrated how the omission to read the exhibits prejudiced his plea. He had an opportunity to challenge the facts when they were read, yet he did not. He also did not raise any objection when the exhibits were tendered. The trial court correctly ensured that he admitted to all the material facts constituting the offence. Accordingly, the conviction was proper. In the final analysis, I find no merit in the appeal. The failure to read the exhibits did not vitiate the conviction, as the plea was unequivocal, and the appellant was well aware of the case against him. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the trial court are upheld. It is so ordered. K.N. ROBERT JUDGE 28.3.2025 5