jackson ole nemeteni others vs attorney general 2007 tzhc 486 13 july 2007

jackson ole nemeteni others vs attorney general 2007 tzhc 486 13 july 2007

Section 148(5)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, in relation to armed robbery, is violative of Article 15(2)(a) of the Constitution because it lacks procedural safeguards and is arbitrary, but the court, invoking Article 30(5), allows the provision to remain valid for 18 months to enable the government to rectify the defect. Section 9(3) of the Act does not violate Article 13(6)(a) as the current system provides sufficient opportunity for the accused to prepare a defence. Non-compliance with section 225(4) is not a constitutional violation but an administrative issue, and the section is not unconstitutional.

Citation
jackson ole nemeteni others vs attorney general 2007 tzhc 486 13 july 2007
Parties
Petitioners: Jackson s/o Ole Nemeteni @ Ole Saibul @ Mdosi @ Mjomba and 19 others; Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
13 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Cause (constitutional Petition) / Judgment
Outcome
Petition partly allowed and partly dismissed
Legal Topics
Denial of Bail, Disclosure of Witness Statements, Right to Fair Trial, Delay in Criminal Proceedings, Interpretation of Constitution
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Procedure Denial of Bail Disclosure of Witness Statements Right to Fair Trial Delay in Criminal Proceedings Interpretation of Constitution

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jackson s/o Ole Nemeteni @ Ole Saibul @ Mdosi @ Mjomba and 19 others

Petitioners

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Cause (constitutional Petition) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether denial of bail for armed robbery under section 148(5)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act violates Article 15(2)(a) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether section 9(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act restricting disclosure of prosecution witness statements violates Article 13(6)(a) of the Constitution
  3. 3 Whether non-compliance with section 225(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act violates Article 107A(2)(b) of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

Section 148(5)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, in relation to armed robbery, is violative of Article 15(2)(a) of the Constitution because it lacks procedural safeguards and is arbitrary, but the court, invoking Article 30(5), allows the provision to remain valid for 18 months to enable the government to rectify the defect. Section 9(3) of the Act does not violate Article 13(6)(a) as the current system provides sufficient opportunity for the accused to prepare a defence. Non-compliance with section 225(4) is not a constitutional violation but an administrative issue, and the section is not unconstitutional.

Court Disposition

Petition partly allowed and partly dismissed

Orders

  • Section 148(5)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, in relation to armed robbery, declared violative of Article 15(2)(a) but remains valid for 18 months from judgment to allow government rectification.
  • Government directed to amend the definition of armed robbery and provide a procedure for denial of bail as per Article 15(2)(a).