MAJIDI MIKIDADI MOHAMED ECONOMIC BAIL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (IN THE SUB REGISTRY OF SHINYANGA) AT SHINYANGA MISC CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 27529 OF 2024 (Arising from the Economic Crime case No. 22758 of the District Court of Kahama 2024) MAJIDI S/O MIKIDADI MOHAMED ….…...................APPLICANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC……………..…………..……………….…RESPONDENT RULING 26th & 27th September, 2024 MASSAM, J.: The applicant one MAJIDI S/O MIKIDADI MOHAMED together with one person who are not part of this application, stand charged with various economic crimes before the District Court of Kahama. As per charge sheet, the applicant and another person are charged with offences of Unauthorized Trading of Minerals c/s 18(1) and 4 (a) of the Mining Act read together with paragraph 27 of the first schedule to, Sections 57(1) and Section 60(2) of the Economic and organized Crime Control Act Cap 200 RE.2022) herein Cap 200 and Occasioning loss to a specified Authority contrary to paragraph 10 (1) of the First Schedule 1 to, Section 57(1) and Section 60(2) of Cap 200 and Cheating contrary to section 304 of the Penal Code Cap 16 RE 2022. It was alleged that that on 14th July, 2024 within Kahama Municipality Shinyanga Region accused persons did trade 17 Kilograms of gold worth TZS 3,524,344,560.1 without license. Like wise on the same date and place willful did trade 17 Kilograms of gold worth TZS 3,524,344.550.1 without license as the result the specified authority to wit The Mining Commission suffered a pecuniary loss of TZS 327,764,043.16/= whereas, the rest offence of cheating involves only the 3rd accused where it was alleged that on 18 day of July, 2024 within Kahama District Shinyanga Region did trick ABDUL ALLY to pay Tshs. 30,000,0000/= to him so as he with help the 1st accused be set free the information he knew to be false. On 25th September, 2024, under the certificate of urgency, the applicant under service of his Advocate, Mr. Bakari Chubwa filed this application for bail which is supported by applicant’s affidavit and opposed with Mr. Saguya S/A with his counter affidavit. 2 At hearing, the applicant was represented by Mr. Chubwa Bakari learned advocate while respondent was represented by Mr. Saguya S/A learned state Attorney. In support of the application Mr. Chubwa prayed this court to adopt the affidavit of applicant to be the part of this application. He stated that this application before this court is under section 29 (4) d of Economic and Organized Crime Control Act (EOCCA) R.E 2022, applicant is praying to this court to grant him bail in this Economic Case No. 22758/2024 which is before Kahama District Court. Mr. Chubwa argued that as per affidavit the applicant is facing the charge which is bailable, but also respondent is not opposing this application. He insisted that the Kahama District Court has no power to grant this application, the reasons are that the applicant is ready to meet the bail condition and to attend to the court at any time needed. Also, Mr. Chubwa submitted that if this court grant this application, he prayed this court to consider Section 36 (5) of EOCCA which gives condition that when the claimed amount is more than 10 million to consider the condition given in that section according to the circumstances. 3 Apparently, he prayed the principle of sharing to be applied at this matter as this case at District court had two applicants which are facing this charge. He forties his argument by referring the case Sayi Maduhu Manjale and Another vs. Republic Misc. Criminal Application No. 31 0f 2023 High Court Mwanza where by the court after grant the bail application in page no 6 she ordered the applicants to deposit the half amount of the claimed money or property with that value, he ordered the principle of sharing to be applied even to the ones who are not at the court. Thus, he prayed to this court to order the applicant to deposit amount of Tshs. 881,086,137.00/= and give other condition which is affordable by the applicant. On the side of respondent, Mr. Saguya prayed his counter affidavit to be adopted to be a part of his submission. He said that because the law is very clear in Section 36(5) a of EOCCA which read together with proviso. He insisted that the condition which provided in the said Section to be followed and he had no objection on principle of sharing. 4 Mr. Saguya submitted that the applicant is required to deposit half amount equivalent to the actual money or property involved and other amount will be secured by execution of the bond. Having considered what is in the application before me and what the parties submitted, I am satisfied that, the applicant deserves nothing but to benefit from his application, since there is no shadow of doubt that as well as objection. Therefore, the applicant is eligible for grant of bail pending Investigation and trial of their case. Consequently, I find the application praiseworthy and grant it accordingly. Upon hearing the submission from both parties, since the applicant has undertaken to abide by bail condition and there being no objection from the respondent, the court will grant this bail in accordance with mandatory Provision of Section 36(5) and (60 of Cap 200). Having granted the application, it follows therefore that, legally bail must be preceded with condition. In the present case, the economic one, in imposing conditions, we are guided by Section 36 (5) and (60 the Economic and Organized Crime Act, Cap 200 R: E 2022 which provide for mandatory and additional condition for such bail. 5 Section 36 (5) provides that; - Where the Court decides to admit an accused person to bail, it shall impose the following conditions on the bail, namely- (a) where the offence with which the person is charged involves actual money or property whose value exceeds ten million shillings unless that person deposits cash or other property equivalent to half the amount or value of actual money or property involved and the rest is secured by execution of a bond; Provided that, where the property to be deposited is immovable, it shall be sufficient to deposit the title deed, or if the title deed is not available such other evidence as is satisfactory to the court in proof of existence of the property; save that this provision shall not apply in the case of police bail; (b) appearance by the accused before the Court on a specified date at a specified time and place; (c) surrender by the accused to the police of his passport or any other travel document; and (d) restriction of the movement of the accused to the area of the town, village or other area of his residence. 6 (6) The Court may, in addition to the mandatory conditions prescribed in subsection (4) impose any one or more of the following conditions, namely- (a) requiring the accused to report at specified intervals to a police station or other authority in his area of residence; (b) requiring the accused to abstain from visiting a particular locality or premises, or association with certain specified persons; (c) any other condition which the Court may deem fit to impose in addition to the preceding conditions, which appear to the Court to be likely to result in the appearance of the accused for the trial or resumed trial at the time and place required or as may be necessary in the interest of justice or for the prevention of crime. Also, the case of Director of Public Prosecution vs Aneth John Makame, Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2018, CAT (unreported) emphasis on the same principles. In economic cases one of the key factors is amount of money involved which play a key element in imposing bail conditions. Since the value of the properties is Tshs. 3,524,344,550.1 7 In respect of sharing principle. Mr. Saguya had no objection on the same. Therefore, this principle to apply to 2 accused persons in the charge sheet whether some of them are eligible for bail or not is not an issue cannot be determined in this application. Thus, the applicants are admitted to bail pending trial subject to the following condition; 1. The applicant to deposit in court, cash amounting to half of Tshs. 881,086,137/= or properties equivalent to half value of the said amount and the rest of the amount to be secured by execution of bond in writing. 2. The applicant has to provide two (2) sureties who are to execute a bond of Tshs. 1,500,000,000/= and satisfy the court that sureties are either employee of government or possesses a National Identity Card issued by NIDA with permanent residence within Kahama. 3. The applicant should not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission from the District Resident Magistrate in charge of Kahama at Kahama. 8 4. The applicant shall continue to attend his case on a date and time scheduled. 5. The applicant, should surrender his passports and any other travelling documents (if any), to the District Resident Magistrate in charge at Kahama District Court at Kahama. 6. Verification of sureties and bond documents to be executed by District Resident Magistrate in charge, Kahama District Court at Kahama. It is so ordered DATED at SHINYANGA this 27th day of September, 2024. R.B. Massam JUDGE 9