Edward s/o Hamisi & 25 Others v. R., Crim. App. 623-648-D-67, 27/9/67, Georges C. J.
The twenty-six accused were convicted of riot [P.C. ss. 74, 76] and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. They were members of the Wanyisanzu tribe, A large group of Wanyisanzu had been summoned to go to Mataragwe to meet and fight a group of Wamang’ati tribesmen, who were said to be coming to attack. It was evident that the Village Executive Officer had led some of the accused to believe that their action would have official sanction: there was testimony that he had stated that anyone who did not go to meet the Wamang’ati would be subject to a fine of one head of cattle. On the way to Mataragwe, the accused met a number of Wamang’ati; a small battle ensued, in which 12 Wanyisanzu were killed.
Held: (1) As there clearly had been time to contact the police and higher administrative authorities, “who could then have organized appropriate forces to restrain the Wamang’ati, the defence of self-defence cannot prevail. (2) That certain Wanyisanzu were able to identify certain Wamang’ati as participants in the riot does not establish the guilt of the Wanyisanzu, as it proves only their presence on the scene. Mere presence is not enough. (3) Persons whose presence at the meeting, where the decision to fight the Wamang’ati was taken, was established, but who were not proven to have participated in the subsequent fighting, cannot be convicted. (4) A person seen at the meeting and later seen running from the scene of the fighting was properly convicted. (5) It is proper to convict persons of riot on the bases of uncorroborated eyewitness testimony by co-participants. In such cases, corroboration would not be required. “Though the parties have committed an offence against the Penal Code, it is clear that they all thought that in obeying the summons to battle, they were merely conforming to custom. Later, when the law intervened, the anxiety to dissociate began. An accomplice in these circumstances, i.e., a participant in the riot, cannot be viewed in the same light as an accomplice in the generally accepted sense.”
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.