dickson paulo sanga vs the attorney general 2020 tzhc 653 20 may 2020

dickson paulo sanga vs the attorney general 2020 tzhc 653 20 may 2020

Section 148(5) of the CPA is unconstitutional as it denies bail for a range of offences without providing a meaningful procedure or judicial discretion, violating articles 13(3) and 15(2)(a) of the Constitution. The provision is not saved by article 30(2) as it lacks adequate safeguards, is overly broad, and is susceptible to abuse and arbitrary decisions. The denial of bail for armed robbery under section 148(5)(a)(i) had already been declared null and void. The remaining part of section 148(5) is given an 18-month period for rectification, after which it will be invalid if not amended.

Citation
dickson paulo sanga vs the attorney general 2020 tzhc 653 20 may 2020
Parties
Petitioner: Dickson Paulo Sanga; Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
20 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition allowed in part
Legal Topics
Bail, Personal Liberty, Presumption of Innocence, Judicial Powers, Separation of Powers, Public Interest Litigation
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Procedure Bail Personal Liberty Presumption of Innocence Judicial Powers Separation of Powers Public Interest Litigation

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 3 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dickson Paulo Sanga

Petitioner

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 148(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) violates articles 13(3), 13(6)(b), and 15(1)&(2) of the Constitution by denying bail for certain offences
  2. 2 Whether the denial of bail under section 148(5) of the CPA is saved by article 30(2) of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

Section 148(5) of the CPA is unconstitutional as it denies bail for a range of offences without providing a meaningful procedure or judicial discretion, violating articles 13(3) and 15(2)(a) of the Constitution. The provision is not saved by article 30(2) as it lacks adequate safeguards, is overly broad, and is susceptible to abuse and arbitrary decisions. The denial of bail for armed robbery under section 148(5)(a)(i) had already been declared null and void. The remaining part of section 148(5) is given an 18-month period for rectification, after which it will be invalid if not amended.

Court Disposition

petition allowed in part

Orders

  • Section 148(5)(a)(i) of the CPA (denial of bail for armed robbery) is declared null and void and struck out.
  • The remainder of section 148(5) of the CPA remains valid for 18 months from the date of judgment for the Government to rectify the law.