Recent Posts

6/recent/ticker-posts

Shabani Ali and another v. R. Crim. Apps. 181 and 182-A-70; 28/9/70; El-Kindy Ag. J.



Shabani Ali and another v. R. Crim. Apps. 181 and 182-A-70; 28/9/70; El-Kindy Ag. J.

The appellants were jointly charged for and convicted with the offence of corrupt transaction with agents’ c/ss. 3(1) and 3(3) (a) Prevention of Corruption Ord. Cap. 400. It appeared from evidence which was disputed that the appellants found the complainant a mechanic driving his motor vehicle along a public road. They, being police officers, threatened to prosecute him because he did not have a road licence and insurance policy. Complainant alleged that the appellants managed to exact Shs. 300/- from him in return for a pardon and that he paid this later as he had no money at the moment. None of the prosecution witnesses saw the actual paying of the bribe. The witnesses merely stated that they had seen the Complainant in the company of the appellants. It was argued on appeal that there had not been enough corroboration of the appellants’ story.

            Held: (1) “In this case, the complainant was an accomplice, and therefore his evidence required material corroboration. For the sake of clarity, the nature of corroboration which is wanted is that which implicates the accused. In the case of LENTO v. MKIRILA v. R. (1963) E.A. 9, the then Chief Justice of Tanzania, Sir Ralph Windham, held that the nature of corroboration required is that which implicates the accused by connecting or tending to connect him with the crime. In other words, it must be evidence which implicates the accused in some material particular not only that the crime has been committed by also that the prisoner committed it. The court of Appeal for East African had laid down similar requirements in their decisions, in the cases of THAKAR SINGH s/o KAHIR SINGH v. REX (1934) EACA Vol. 1 p. 110 at p. 112 and NDAMSIA WA WAMBURU v. REX (1937) IV EACA p. 27 at p. 28. (2) None of the witnesses except Idi Bakari the brother of the complainant (Bakari) knew about the alleged bribe and he was an accomplice since complainant had told him to produce some money for the purposes of the bribe and he had given Shs. 10/- “I have no doubt, in my mind that Bakari knew that his brother was going to bribe his arrestors so that hey do not charge him with the offence. In the circumstances I agree that the evidence disclosed that Bakari Hamisi was a particep criminis on his evidence therefore needed corroboration and his evidence cannot corroborate the evidence of another accomplice – the complainant.” (3) There being no other corroborative evidence it was unsafe to support the convictions. (4) Appeals allowed.

Post a Comment

0 Comments