ECONOMICCASE NO

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

CORRUPTION AND ECONOMIC CRIMES DIVISION MOROGORO SUB-REGISTRY

AT MOROGORO ECONOMIC CASE NO. 14560 OF 2024 CASE REFERENCE NO. 202405292000014560

THE REPUBLIC

VERSUS

BANZI JUMA RAMADHANI

JUDGMENT 6th and 13th June, 2024 KISANYA, J.: Banzi Juma Ramadhani is charged with trafficking narcotic drugs, contrary to section 15(l)(a) and (3)(iii) of the Drug Control and Enforcement Act [Cap. 95, R.E. 2019] (the Drugs Act) as amended, read together with paragraph 23 of the 1st Schedule to, and sections 57(1) and 60(2) of the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act, [Cap. 200, R. E., 2022] (the EOCCA). The charge stems from an incident on the 26th day of July 2023, at Rhumba Chini area within the District and Region of Morogoro, where the i accused allegedly trafficked in 213.05 kilograms of narcotic drugs, namely cannabis sativa, commonly known as "bhangi". Given that the accused denied the charges against him, the court called upon the prosecution to substantiate the charges filed. In fulfilling this duty, the prosecution, represented by Ms. Janethreza Kitaly, Senior State Attorney, Ms. Monica Matu, Mr. Jumanne Milanzi and Hamisi Katandula, Ms. Edna Alyoce and Ms. Theodora Mlelwa, State Attorneys, called six (6) witnesses whose testimonies were corroborated by eight (8) exhibits. On the defence side, the accused was represented by Mr. Samwel Alphonce Banzi, learned counsel. He served as the sole witness for the defence. The evidence presented by the prosecution can be summarized as follows: On the night leading up to the 26th day of July, 2023, an officer from the

Drugs and Control Enforcement Authority (DCEA) named A/Insp. Witness (PW2) was conducting a special narcotic drugs operation at Kisaki area within Morogoro District in Morogoro Region. She was accompanied by other DCEA officers, including Insp. Wamba (PW6). At around 02:00 hours, while on vehicle patrol at Kisaki village, PW2 received a tip from an informant posing as a buyer of narcotic drugs. The informant revealed that a narcotic drug deal was set to occur at Rhumba Chini village. 2 Upon receiving that information, PW2 alerted her colleagues, and they proceeded to Rhumba area. They arrived at the location around 02:30 or 03:00 hours, which was a remote, forested area with no human habitation and inaccessible by vehicle. PW2 instructed the informant to confirm that all narcotic drug packages were present and to signal by flashing a torch three times once everything was in place. While in hiding, PW2 overheard the informant instructing each person to stay with his packages. Shortly after, she noticed the torch flashing three times. PW2 and the other officers emerged from their hiding spots and approached the scene, where they found several persons, each with his sulphate bags. PW2, along with PW6, arrested a person who identified himself as Banzi Juma Ramadhani, the accused herein. Other suspects were arrested by other officials present. The accused was sitting with seven

sulphate bags containing leaves suspected to be narcotic drugs. PW2 labeled the bags Al to A7 and seized them using a certificate of seizure (Exhibit P5) on which the accused affixed his thumbprint, while Insp. Wamba (PW6) signed it as a witness. Following the seizure, PW2 opened case file No. DCEA/MOR/IR/06/2023 and marked each sulphate bag with that number. The exhibits remained 3 under her custody, and the suspect was detained. She then communicated with her leaders and requested on-site examination and analysis of the exhibits due to challenges with storage and transportation. A few hours later, at approximately 12:00 hours, Joseph Jackson Ntiba (PW1), a chemist from the Government Chemist Laboratory Authority (GCLA) in Dar es Salaam, arrived. PW2 handed over to him, the seven sulphate bags containing leaves suspected to be narcotic drugs. This handover was documented using a sample submission form (Exhibit P2) and a sample receipt notification form (Exhibit P6) prepared by PW2 and PW1, respectively. PW1 assigned Lab. No. HQ023-01597 to the sample submission form, weighed each sulphate bag, and found a total net weight of 213.05 kilograms. He extracted two samples from each bag, placing them in separate envelopes labeled according to the sulphate bag labels. Thereafter, he conducted a preliminary test on-site, indicating the leaves were cannabis sativa. PW1 labeled and

signed each sulphate bag with HQ023-01597 and the date 26/07/2023, then returned all sulphate bags to PW2 for custody. The seven sulphate bags remained with PW2 until the arrival of the Joseph Maugo (State Attorney), PW4 Theresia Kaniki (Magistrate), and PW5 Alex Roman (Environmental Officer). The State Attorney orally applied for the 4 disposal of the seized exhibits and submitted an inventory for the magistrate's approval. The said inventory of exhibits for disposal was prepared by PW2 and signed by the accused. PW4 examined the exhibits, asked the accused if he had any objections to their destruction, to which he responded negatively. Thereafter, PW4 ordered the exhibits to be destroyed by burning. Her order was recorded in the inventory of exhibits for disposal which was admitted in evidence as Exhibit P7. Following the said order, the dry leaves in the seven sulphate bags were destroyed after an environmental assessment conducted by PW5. The destruction was held in the presence of the accused, PW1, PW2, PW4, PW5, the State Attorney and other officers. At the same time, photographer named Mato documented the destruction process. Afterward, PW2 filled out a certificate of destruction (Exhibit P3) which was also signed by all present stakeholders. The seven empty sulphate bags were not destroyed. They remained in PW2's custody until she handed them over to the exhibit keeper,

Insp. Johari (PW3), at around 18:40 hours on the same day. This handing over was documented through a certificate of handing over (Exhibit P8). PW3 ferried 5 the empty sulphate bags to Dar es Salaam where she kept them until they were presented in court and admitted as Exhibit P4 collectively. Meanwhile, PW1 went back to Dar es Salaam with the seven samples and secured them in his laboratory cabinet. There, he conducted a confirmatory test on the samples, detecting the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol chemicals, thereby confirming that the samples contained cannabis sativa. He then prepared and signed the Government Chemist Analyst Report (Exhibit Pl) on the 31st day of July, 2023, detailing his findings. Based on the evidence presented, the court resolved that the accused person had a case to answer and offered him the opportunity to present his defence. He chose to testify under oath without calling any supporting witnesses. Appearing as DW1, the accused passionately denied any involvement in the charges leveled against him. He detailed that he resides in Mkokolo village, within Singisa Ward, Morogoro Rural District. He categorically stated that, the night preceding 25th day of July, 2023, he was peacefully asleep at his residence in Mkokolo village when he was abruptly awoken by the forceful 6 banging on his door by three unidentified people who proceeded to arrest him. The

accused claimed that during the said arrest, he was subjected to physical abuse, including being kicked, handcuffed, and threatened with death if he raised any alarm. He recounted being marched for approximately 2 hours and 30 minutes to the location where vehicles were parked and that he was further mistreated, including being shackled, beaten, and forcefully placed into a vehicle for transportation to Morogoro Police Station. The accused stated under oath that he did not place his thumbprint on Exhibits P5 and P7 as he is literate and capable of reading and writing. Moreover, he professed complete ignorance regarding the seven bags of cannabis sativa leaves allegedly found in his possession. Asserting his innocence, the accused earnestly implored the court to acquit him of the charged offence. After the defence concluded presenting their evidence, the learned counsel from both sides were afforded the opportunity to make their final submissions. It was the defence's argument that the evidence presented by the prosecution contained significant flaws, thus failing to establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt. On the contrary, the prosecution maintained that 7 their evidence satisfactorily met the requisite legal standard for proof. The court expresses its gratitude to the learned counsel from both sides for their professional and diligent handling of this case. In reaching

its decision, the court will thoroughly consider the arguments put forth by both parties, taking into account the issues raised and the evidence presented during the trial. It is a fundamental legal principle in criminal cases, such as this one, that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution to establish the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This principle is also outlined in section 3(2) and 114(1) of the Evidence Act [Cap. 6, R.E. 2022]. In that respect, the court's primary focus is to determine whether the prosecution has met this stringent standard of proof. To address that pivotal question in this case, it is crucial to consider the requirements set forth in section 15(l)(a) and (3)(iii) of the Drugs Act as amended by the Written Laws( Miscellaneous Amendment) (No.5) Act, 2021. Pursuant to that provision, the offence of trafficking in narcotic drugs mandates that the prosecution prove two essential elements: First, that the accused was engaged in trafficking narcotic drugs, namely cannabis sativa; and second, that the quantity of cannabis sativa involved exceeds 100 kilograms. In this context, the court will evaluate the following key issues to 8 ascertain whether the prosecution has discharged its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. Whether the accused trafficked in 213.05 kilograms of narcotic drugs, namely cannabis sativa.

2. Whether the disposal of the narcotic drugs complied with the legal requirements.

3. Whether the seizure of the narcotic drugs adhered to legal protocols.

4. Whether the chain of custody of the narcotic drugs was properly maintained.

5. Whether the accused has raised any reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case. First for consideration is the first issue, whether the accused person trafficked in 213.05 kilograms of cannabis sativa. Section 2 of the Drugs Act defines "trafficking" to include a wide range of activities involving narcotic drugs, such as the importation, exportation, buying, selling, giving, supplying, storing, possession, production, manufacturing, conveyance, delivery, or distribution by any person. In the case of Haji Rashid Matundu and Another vs R, Criminal Appeal No. 314 of 2021 (unreported), the Court of Appeal underlined that trafficking in narcotic drugs may be carried out by any of the said modes set out under section 2 of the Drugs Act. 9 Applying the above stance to this case, the prosecution must demonstrate through evidence that the accused was involved in trafficking by proving his possession, control, or participation in any of the activities or means specified under the statutory definition of trafficking. This could include showing that the accused possessed, stored, transported, delivered, distributed or otherwise handled the 213.05 kilograms of cannabis sativa in a manner consistent with the definition of trafficking. It was the testimony of PW2 and PW6 that, acting on a tip from an informant, PW2 arrested the accused at Rhumba Chini while he was sitting on seven

sulphate bags, expecting to complete a deal of selling them to the informant who acted as a buyer. Both witnesses clearly stated that PW2 seized the seven sulphate bags containing leaves suspected to be cannabis sativa through a certificate of seizure (Exhibit P5), which was signed by the accused, who appended his thumbprint, PW6 as a witness, and PW2 as the arresting officer. The questions posed by the defence counsel to PW2 and PW6 did not in any way affect this testimony. In his defence, the accused claimed that he was arrested at his home located at Mkololo village and not Rhumba Chini. However, PW2 and PW6 were not questioned about the accused's alleged arrest at Mkololo instead of 10 Rhumba Chini. It is an established legal principle and the court needs not to cite any authority, that failure to cross-examine a witness on a crucial fact is equivalent to an admission of that fact. In this context, the court finds no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW2 and PW6, who asserted that they apprehended the accused at Rhumba Chini and found him in possession of seven sulphate bags containing leaves suspected to be narcotic drug. The question that arises is whether the seven sulphate bags seized from the accused contained cannabis sativa weighing 213.05 kilograms. In accordance with section 48A(1) of the Drugs Act, the Chief Government Chemist is authorized to weigh and

analyze substances suspected to be narcotic drugs. With this provision in mind, the prosecution summoned PW1, a chemist from the GCLA. This witness stated that he was designated as a Government Analyst through GN. No. 17 of 2018. Given the said credentials, the court finds that PW1 was indeed the qualified person to weigh and analyze the contents of the seven sulphate bags, which PW2 and PW6 testified were seized from the accused. PW1 asserted under oath that he traveled to the scene from Dar es Salaam with essential equipment, including a scale and kits for preliminary testing. His testimony revealed that he received the seven sulphate bags li containing leaves from PW2. It is in evidence that, upon weighing, PW1 determined that the total net weight of the leaves in all bags was 213.05 kilograms. PW1 further explained that he extracted two samples in duplicate from each sulphate bag and conducted a preliminary test on-site, which indicated that the samples from all seven bags were cannabis sativa. PW1 went on to testify that he took the remaining samples to GCLA in Dar es Salaam, where, he conducted a confirmatory test using an LC MS machine. According to him, this test confirmed the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol chemical, which is found exclusively in cannabis leaves. Consequently, PW1 prepared and signed an analyst report dated 31/07/2023 (Exhibit Pl) documenting his

findings. It is depicted in Exhibit Pl that the leaves in the seven sulphate bags received from PW2 were narcotic drugs, namely cannabis sativa, weighing 213.05 kilograms. As outlined in section 48A(2) of the Drugs Act, a report signed by a Government analyst is admissible as evidence of facts without the need for formal proof, and is considered conclusive unless rebutted. In this instance, the court has found no grounds to question the findings in the Government Chemist Analyst (Exhibit Pl). This is particularly noteworthy as the defence has not presented any compelling reasons to contest the evidence of PW1 or 12 Exhibit Pl. Consequently, the court is convinced that the prosecution has established that the leaves in the seven sulphate bags seized from the accused were indeed cannabis sativa, weighing 213.05 kilograms. Additionally, the testimonies of PW2 and PW6, stating that the accused was discovered with the said sulphate bags in the act of selling them, indicate that he was in possession of the cannabis sativa. This act of possession constitutes one of the modes or means of trafficking under section 2 of the Drugs Act. Based on the foregoing analysis, the court finds that the first issue has been answered in the affirmative. On the second issue, the court is called upon to determine whether the disposal of the narcotic drugs complied with legal requirements.

This assessment is based on the testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW4, and PW6, who all asserted that the leaves in all sulphate bags were disposed of following an order issued by the magistrate (PW4). Their evidence was corroborated by the inventory of seized exhibits for disposal (Exhibit P7) and the certificate of destruction (Exhibit P3). 13 Mr. Banzi argued that there were no justifiable reasons for disposing of the leaves at the scene, asserting that it was possible to transport the sulphate . bags containing the leaves. He further contended that the prosecution failed to present photographs taken during the disposal process as required by the law. In reply, Ms. Kitaly submitted that the disposal was conducted in accordance with the conditions specified in section 36(1) of the Drugs Act. Although the learned Senior State Attorney conceded that the photographs were not presented, she argued that the omission did not undermine the oral testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW4, PW5, and PW6 on that point. As rightly argued by the learned Senior State Attorney, section 36 of the Drugs Act provides the framework for the disposal of seized narcotic drugs. Sub-section (1) of that section allows for the destruction of narcotic drugs where there are challenges, such as vulnerability to theft, substitution, or constraints of proper storage space or other consideration. In essence, the provision, aims

to prevent any mishandling, theft, or unauthorized use of the narcotic drugs, which could undermine the judicial process and public safety. However, the disposal of exhibits must comply with the procedure set out under sections 36(2) and (3) of the Drugs Act. The seizing officer must prepare an inventory showing details such as the description, quantity, mode 14 of packing, marks, and numbers associated with the narcotic drugs. Moreover, the inventory so prepared should state particulars pertaining to the identification of the narcotic drugs, packaging details, country of origin, and any other essential information that contributes to establishing the identity of the seized substances. To complete this process, the seizing officer must seek certification of the inventory's correctness from a magistrate. In this instance, the court finds that immediate destruction was justified given the quantity of drugs (213.05 kilograms) found in possession of the accused, not to mention other narcotic drugs said to have been recovered from other suspects; the associated transport and storage challenges as demonstrated by PW2. As regards the destruction procedure, PW2 testified to have prepared the inventory of exhibits for disposal (Exhibit P7), with all details required by law. He also asserted that he requested a State Attorney to apply before the magistrate (PW4) for the disposal of the

seized exhibits. Indeed, PW4 confirmed to receiving an oral application for the disposal of the seven sulphate bags containing substances said drugs. She further stated under oath that the accused was present when the application was made and that he had no objection or comment against the application. PW4 further attested 15 to granting the application and issuing the order for the destruction of substances alleged to be narcotic drugs, as evidenced by Exhibit P7, to which the accused affixed his thumbprint. Moreover, there is evidence indicating that the leaves in all seven sulphate bags were destroyed by burning, following an assessment by the environmental officer, PW5. The evidence also shows that the destruction was carried out in the presence of the accused, the magistrate (PW4), a State Attorney, and other officers, as indicated in the certificate of destruction (Exhibit P3). Mr. Banzi's concern regarding the absence of photographs documenting the disposal process is noteworthy. However, the court is of the considered opinion that this omission did not weaken the integrity of the disposal procedure. While photographs would have provided additional visual confirmation, it is clear that their absence alone does not negate the validity of the detailed accounts provided by the witnesses. During cross-examination, the prosecution witnesses admitted that the certificate of

destruction (Exhibit P3) was not signed by the accused. However, as accounted by PW2 and other witnesses, Exhibit P3 is a prescribed form made under the Drug Control and Enforcement (General) 16 Regulations, 2016 with no section requiring the accused to sign it. Thus, the contention that the certification of destruction was not signed by the accused is unfounded. Having considered the testimonies and Exhibits P3 and P7 and the relevant legal framework, the court holds the view that the disposal of the narcotic drugs complied with the legal requirements stipulated under section 36 of the Drugs Act. Therefore, the second issue is resolved in the affirmative as well. Next for consideration is the third issue, whether the search and seizure of the narcotic drugs adhered to the law. It is well-established that for a search to be legal, it must comply with the requirements set out under section 38(1) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act [Cap. 20, R.E. 2022] (the CPA). These requirements include: the issuance of a search warrant; the presence of the owner of the premises, occupier, or a close relative at the search premises; the presence of an independent witness required to sign to verify their presence; and the issuance of a receipt acknowledging the seizure of property. [See the case of Samwel Kibundali Mg aya vs R, Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 2020, CAT at Musoma

(unreported). 17 In the present case, it is not disputed that the search and seizure were conducted without a search warrant and an independent witness, as required by the law. Citing the case of DPP vs Mussa Hatibu Sembe, Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 2021 (unreported), Mr. Banzi argued that the search and seizure were illegal due to the absence of an independent witness. He contended that the arresting officer had ample time to secure the presence of an independent witness. In response, the learned Senior State Attorney argued that the search and seizure were carried out under emergency circumstances. She highlighted that the operation took place at night when a narcotic drug deal was about to occur and the scene was forested area devoid of inhabitants, making it impractical for PW2 to obtain an independent witness. The court acknowledges that, according to sections 41 and 42 of the Criminal Procedure Act [Cap. 20, R.E. 2022] (the CPA), a search warrant is not necessary in urgency situations. This stance is supported by the case of Maluqus Chiboni @ Silvester Chiboni and John Simon vs. R, Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2011 (unreported). In the present case, PW2 received a tip- off from an informant about an imminent narcotic deal late at night of around 02:00 hours. It is evident that there was no time for PW2 to obtain a search warrant at that hour. Furthermore, given that the

identity of the suspect to be 18 searched was not yet known, the urgency justified the arrest, search, and seizure without strict adherence to section 38 of the CPA. Furthermore, the testimonies of PW2 and PW6 revealed that the arrest, search, and seizure took place, a few minutes later, around 02:30 hours to 03:00 hours, in the forest or wilderness area of Rhumba Chini, where there were no human settlements nearby. Therefore, it was impractical for the arresting officers to secure the presence of an independent witness, including the local government leaders during the night. The court is bolstered by the case of Papaa Olesikaladai @ Lendemu & Another vs Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2020, [2023] TZCA 51 (20 February 2023), in which the Court of Appeal held that if an offence is committed in a remote area, bush, or forest where an independent witness cannot be procured, the presence of such a witness can be dispensed with. Mr. Banzi's argument that PW2 could have brought an independent witness from Kisaki village is noted. However, since the arrest, search, and seizure were to be conducted at Rhumba Chini area, any witnesses brought from another location would not be considered impartial. It is clear that such witnesses would appear as part of the operation team due to traveling with the arresting officers and hiding while waiting for the informant's

notification. 19 Hence, the court agrees with the learned counsel for the prosecution that the circumstances justified the absence of an independent witness as well. As for the requirement for a receipt of seizure, the prosecution submitted a certificate of seizure (Exhibit P5) indicating that the seven sulphate bags containing leaves suspected to be narcotic drugs were found with the accused. This certificate of seizure (Exhibit P5) was signed by the accused with a thumbprint and admitted into evidence without objection from the defence. It is a settled law in this jurisdiction that, a certificate of seizure serves as an acknowledgment that the items listed were seized from the signatory. See the case of Papaa Olesikaladai @ Lendemu & Another (supra): " We agree with Ms. Madikenya that the complaint for non­ issuance of a receipt will have no place in cases where a certificate of seizure is issued. This stance is fairly settled in our jurisdiction. We discussed this position at some considerable length in Gitabeka Giyaya v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 44 of2020 (unreported), a judgment we rendered on 28.12.2022. In that appeal, we retied on a number of previous decision including Ramadhan Idd Mchafu v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 328 of 2019 Abda/ah Said Mwingereza v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 258 of 2013 (both unreported) and Matata Nassoro 20 and Another (supra) to

underscore the point that where, like here, a certificate of seizure is issued 13 and is signed by the accused person, the same constitutes evidence even without a receipt." Considering the above analysis, the court finds that the prosecution has proved that the search and seizure were conducted in accordance with the law, and thus, the third issue is resolved in the affirmative. Regarding the fourth issue, whether the chain of custody was properly maintained, it is a settled law that maintaining a paper trail or providing oral testimony, or a combination of both, is sufficient to establish the chain of custody. This position is supported by a plethora of authorities of the Court of Appeal, One of them being, Saganda Saganda Kasanzu vs Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2019 (unreported). Based on the evidence presented in this case, the chain of custody for the narcotic drugs was maintained through documented records and oral testimonies as hereunder: First, the testimonies of PW2 and PW6, supported by the certificate of seizure (Exhibit P5) indicate that the seven sulphate bags containing leaves suspected to be narcotic drugs were seized from the accused. These bags remained in the custody of PW2 after the seizure. 21 Second, PW2 later transferred custody of the bags to PW1 for laboratory analysis. After conducting weighing, sampling, and preliminary testing, PW1 returned

the bags containing the dry leaves back to PW2. This handing over between PW2 and PW1 was documented in Exhibits Pl, P2, and P6, and accounted for in the oral testimonies of PW1, PW2, and PW6. Third, after receiving the bags from PW1, PW2 maintained custody of the same until they were destroyed by burning as per Exhibit P3, following an order issued by PW4 and recorded in Exhibit P7. Fourth, PW2 handed over the empty sulphate bags to the exhibit keeper, PW3, as documented in the handing over certificate (Exhibit P8). PW3 testified that she kept the empty sulphate bags until they were presented in court. In view thereof, the court finds that the oral testimonies, supported by the documentary evidence, demonstrate an unbroken chain of custody for the narcotic drugs from their initial seizure to their final destruction. Consequently, the fourth issue is resolved in the affirmative. Lastly, the court must consider whether the defence has raised reasonable doubts about the prosecution's case. As indicated herein, the accused's line of defence is to the effect that he was arrested at his residence 22 on 25th July 2023 and brought to the area where he was found with the vehicle. If the accused intended to contend that he was not present at the crime scene when the offence was committed on 26th July 2023, the court agrees with Ms. Kitaly that the defence of alibi, as governed by

section 42(1), (2), and (3) of the EOCCA, was not complied with. Pursuant to that provision an accused intending to rely on the defence of alibi is required to disclose the particulars of his alibi either at the preliminary hearing or before the prosecution concludes its case. If that procedure is not complied with, the court has the discretion to disregard the defense of alibi This position is supported by the case of Kubezya John vs R, Criminal Appeal No. 488 of 2015, [2019] TZCA 472 (12 December 2019). In the present case, notice to rely on the defense of aiibiwas not issued during the preliminary hearing. Yet, the particulars of aiibiw&cQ not disclosed before the closure of the prosecution's case. In the event the accused intended to convey that he was arrested and taken to the location where he was accused of being in possession of the drugs, PW2 and PW6 were not questioned at all regarding the arrest of the accused at his residence. 23 Given the established legal principle that failure to cross-examine witnesses on crucial facts implies acceptance of those facts, the court is inclined to view the accused's assertion of being arrested at his home as an afterthought. Therefore, the court exercises its discretionary power to disregard the said defence. The accused further claimed that he did not place his thumbprint on the certificate of seizure (Exhibit P5) and inventory of

exhibits for disposal (Exhibit P7). However, as aptly argued by Ms. Kitally, Exhibits P5 and P7 were admitted into evidence without objection from the defence. Moreover, during cross-examination, neither PW2 and PW6 nor PW4 were questioned about the accused hot affixing his thumbprint on Exhibits P5 and P7. The only question asked was whether the suspect knew how to read and write at the time of signing using a thumbprint. It is common knowledge that a person may be required to affix his thumbprint even if he knows how to write. For these reasons, the claim that the accused did not place his thumbprint on Exhibits P5 and P7 cannot be considered by this court. In his final submission, Mr. Banzi pointed out errors in the certificate of seizure (Exhibit P5) and the inventory of exhibits for disposal (Exhibit P7). Notably, while Exhibit P5 indicates that the search was conducted on 24 26/08/2023, Exhibit P7 shows that the inventory details were filled in on 26/08/2023 and not 26/07/2023. The learned counsel for the accused argued that these date discrepancies cast doubt on the prosecution's case. As explained by the learned Senior State Attorney, PW2, who completed the said documents, admitted to mistakenly writing the date as 26/08/2023 and requested the court to consider the correct date as 26/07/2023. The court has also noted that at the bottom of Exhibit P5, PW2 signed for

conducting the search and seizure on 26/07/2023. Similarly, in Exhibit P7, the magistrate (PW4) indicated to have signed the order for the destruction of the exhibits on 26/07/2023. In these circumstances, the court agrees with the learned counsel for the prosecution that the date 26/08/2023 was written in error. Considering the oral testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, and PW6, the court finds that these errors are human errors and do not render these exhibits inadmissible or affect the prosecution's case. The oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses clearly indicate that the search and destruction events took place on 26/07/2023. Therefore, the court dismisses the defence's argument that the date discrepancies in Exhibits P5 and P7 have affected the prosecution's case. 25 In light of the factors discussed above, it is evidence that the defence has not succeeded in casting reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case. Conversely, the court is of the considered view that the prosecution has provided credible witnesses whose testimonies and exhibits support each other, establishing the charge laid against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Ultimately, the court concludes that Banzi Juma Ramadhani is guilty and convicts him of trafficking in narcotic drugs under section 15(l)(a) and (3)(iii) of the Drug Control and Enforcement Act [Cap. 95, R.E. 2019] as amended by the Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No.5) Act, 2021read together with paragraph 23 of the 1st Schedule to, and sections 57(1) and 60(2) of the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act, [Cap. 200, R. E., 2022]. Dated this 13th day of June, 2024. S.E. KI^ANYA

JUDGE 13/06/2024 Court: Judgment delivered this 13th day of June, 2024 in the presence of Mr. Jumanne Milanzi, learned State Attorney for the Republic, the accused person and Mr. Aziz Mahenge holding brief for Mr. Samwel Alyoce Banzi, learned advocate for the accused person, all present through video link from the High 26 Court of Tanzania at Morogoro. B/C Mr. Lul^^o Present- S.E. KISANYA

JUDGE 13/06/2024

SENTENCE This court has carefully considered the mitigation presented by the defence. However, it must be underscored that the accused has been convicted of trafficking in narcotic drugs. Pursuant to section 15(l)(a) of the Drug Control and Enforcement Act [Cap. 95, R.E. 2019] as amended, read together with the proviso to section 60(2) of the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act, Cap. 200, R.E. 2022, a life sentence is mandatory for such offences. The Court is further guided by the precedent set in Islem Shebe Islem vs R, Criminal Appeal No. 187 of 2020 (unreported), where the Court of Appeal enhanced a sentence from 30 years to life imprisonment. It is clear that the sentence prescribed by the law reflects the gravity of the offence and serves as a stern warning against such illicit activities. In alignment with these legal standards and judicial precedents, the accused person is hereby sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment pursuant to section 15(l)(a) and (3)(iii) of the Drug Control and Enforcement Act [Cap. 27 95, R.E. 2019] as amended, read together with the proviso to section 60(2) of the Economi rganized Crime Control Act. S.E. KISANYA

JUDGE 13/06/2024 Court: Sente! renounced on this 13th day of June, 2024 in the presence of S.E. KISANYA

JUDGE 13/06/2024 the judgment and sentence is explained to the

JUDGE 13/06/2024 The seven empty sulfate bags (Exhibit P4) should be destroyed in accordance with the applicable law. S.E. KISANYA

JUDGE 13/06/2024 28