Uncategorized

Court & Citation Court of Appeal of TanzaniaCase: Jebra Kambole v Attorney GeneralAppeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 236 of 2019Coram: Kihwelo, JAJudgment Date: 15 June 2022Citation: [2022] TZCA 377Source: TanzLII Judgment ⸻ Legal Issue / Principle Whether the mandatory imposition of the death penalty under Section 197 of the Penal Code violates constitutional rights, including the right to life, dignity, equality, and fair trial protections. Case Summary (Facts) Jebra Kambole, a Tanzanian advocate, filed a constitutional petition challenging the mandatory death penalty for murder as prescribed under Section 197 of the Penal Code. He argued that this provision infringed upon several constitutional rights, notably: The High Court dismissed the petition, citing the doctrine of res judicata, referencing the precedent set in Mbushuu v Republic (1994), which upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty. Kambole appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal. Key Holding / Ratio The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision, affirming that the matter was res judicata, as the constitutionality of the death penalty had been previously addressed in Mbushuu v Republic. The Court reasoned that the challenge to the mandatory nature of the death penalty did not present new issues distinct from those settled in Mbushuu. Outcome Significance / Notes for Practice This decision reinforces the precedent that the mandatory death penalty is constitutional in Tanzania, limiting avenues for challenging it on constitutional grounds. Legal practitioners should note the Court’s reliance on the doctrine of res judicata, emphasizing the finality of constitutional interpretations unless compelling new arguments or evidence are presented. However, it’s important to recognize that this stance contrasts with evolving international human rights jurisprudence, where several jurisdictions have moved towards abolishing or limiting the mandatory death penalty, citing concerns over human rights violations. #ConstitutionalLaw #DeathPenalty #HumanRights #CourtOfAppeal #TanzaniaLaw #ResJudicata #FairTrial #RightToLife

1. Court & Citation Court of Appeal of Tanzania (Dar es Salaam) – Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2016. Coram: Rutakangwa, Mussa, Juma, Mwarija & Mugasha JJA (Juma JA delivering the judgment). Judgment delivered 1 July 2016media.tanzlii.orgmedia.tanzlii.org. 2. Legal Issue / Principle Whether a registered voter has statutory standing under section 111(1)(a) of the National Elections Act to file an election petition without pleading that his or her own vote was affectedmedia.tanzlii.org. Put differently, must voters show a personal deprivation of voting rights to challenge election results under the Act? 3. Case Summary (Facts) 4. Key Holding / Ratio 5. Outcome 6. Significance / Notes for Practice This decision restores a broad voter-centric approach to election petitions. It makes clear that any eligible voter in the constituency may challenge the election result under s.111(1)(a) without needing to demonstrate that his or her personal vote was affected. In practice, this means High Courts can no longer dismiss petitions simply because petitioners did not plead a personal grievance. Instead, petitions must be considered on the substantive irregularities alleged. The Court’s ruling effectively overrules the contrary implication of Lema v Mkanga (2012) by adhering to the literal statute. For practitioners, the takeaway is that election petitions should focus on alleged electoral violations, not technical standing hurdles for voters. This empowers ordinary citizens to hold elections to account and underscores the democratic intent behind Tanzania’s election laws.

Na Wakili Steven Kitale Cleophace Utangulizi Katika ulimwengu wa utawala wa sheria, uwepo wa mfumo imara wa ulinzi wa mashahidi ni muhimu sana. Mashahidi ndio macho na masikio ya mahakama, na uwezo wao wa kutoa ushahidi bila hofu ni msingi wa kutendeka kwa haki. Ni katika muktadha huu ambapo Kanuni za Ulinzi wa Mashahidi za Mwaka 2025, zilizotungwa chini ya Sheria ya Mwenendo wa Makosa ya Jinai (Sura ya 20), zinaonekana kuwa na nia njema ya kuimarisha mapambano dhidi ya uhalifu. Madhumuni makuu, kama yalivyobainishwa, ni kulinda mashahidi walio hatarini ili waweze kujitokeza na kutoa ushahidi, na hivyo kuwezesha upatikanaji wa haki. Hata hivyo, kama wakili ninayeshughulika na masuala ya haki jinai, nimechukua jukumu la kuchambua kwa kina vifungu vya kanuni hizi na Kifungu cha 194 cha Sheria ya Mwenendo wa Makosa ya Jinai (Sura ya 20 R.E. 2023). Uchambuzi huu unalenga kubaini iwapo utekelezaji wake unaweza kudhoofisha, au hata kukinzana na, haki za msingi za mshtakiwa zilizohakikishwa na Katiba ya Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania, hususan Ibara ya 13 (Haki ya Usawa Mbele ya Sheria) na Ibara ya 14 (Haki ya Kuishi). Kwani, haki hizi ni nguzo za mfumo wetu wa kisheria na zinahakikisha kila raia anapata fursa ya kusikilizwa kwa haki na kwa kufuata utaratibu halali wa kisheria. Misingi ya Haki za Mshtakiwa Kikatiba Kabla ya kuzama kwenye uchambuzi wa kanuni hizi, ni muhimu kukumbushana misingi ya haki za mshtakiwa kama ilivyowekwa na Katiba yetu adhimu:  * Ibara ya 13(6)(a): Haki ya kusikilizwa kwa haki katika chombo chochote cha mahakama. Hii si tu haki ya kusikilizwa, bali ni haki ya kupata fursa ya kutosha na isiyo na vikwazo ya kujitetea.  * Ibara ya 13(6)(b): Dhana ya kutokuwa na hatia mpaka itakapothibitishwa (presumption of innocence). Mshtakiwa huhesabika hana hatia hadi pale hatia yake itakapothibitishwa bila shaka na mahakama yenye mamlaka.  * Ibara ya 15(2): Haki ya uhuru wa mtu, inayotafsiriwa kuwa inajumuisha haki ya utaratibu halali wa kisheria (due process of law), yaani, hakuna mtu anayepaswa kunyimwa uhuru wake isipokuwa kwa mujibu wa sheria na kwa kufuata taratibu stahiki. Kutokana na misingi hii, haki ya kusikilizwa kwa haki inajumuisha mambo muhimu yafuatayo katika kesi za jinai:  * Haki ya kukabili na kudodosha mashahidi wa upande wa mashtaka (right to confront and cross-examine witnesses). Hii inamaanisha kumwona shahidi, kusikia anachokisema, na kuwa na uwezo wa kumuhoji ili kubaini ukweli au udhaifu wa ushahidi huo.  * Haki ya kupata taarifa kamili za mashtaka na ushahidi dhidi yake.  * Haki ya kuwasilisha utetezi wake.  * Haki ya kusikilizwa mahakamani hadharani. Hii inahakikisha uwazi na uwajibikaji katika mfumo wa haki, isipokuwa kwa hali maalum.  * Haki ya kuwakilishwa na mwanasheria. Kanuni za Ulinzi wa Mashahidi (2025) na Kifungu cha 194 cha CPA: Mwanga na Kivuli cha Haki Pamoja na nia nzuri ya kulinda mashahidi, baadhi ya vifungu katika Kanuni za Ulinzi wa Mashahidi za Mwaka 2025, pamoja na Kifungu cha 194 cha Sheria ya Mwenendo wa Makosa ya Jinai (Sura ya 20 R.E. 2023), vinaibua maswali makubwa kuhusu uhalali wake kikatiba na jinsi vinavyoathiri haki za mshtakiwa: 1. Maombi ya Upande Mmoja (Ex-Parte Application) – Kifungu cha 194(1) cha CPA na Kanuni ya 4(1)  * Tatizo: Kifungu cha 194(1) cha CPA na Kanuni ya 4(1) zinampa Mkurugenzi wa Mashtaka ya Umma (DPP) pekee haki ya kuleta maombi ya ulinzi wa shahidi kwa njia ya ex-parte, yaani, bila mshtakiwa au wakili wake kuwepo au kusikia maombi hayo. Hii inamaanisha kuwa Mahakama inaweza kutoa amri muhimu zinazoathiri haki za mshtakiwa bila upande wa utetezi kupewa fursa ya kusikilizwa au kupinga.  * Athari kwa Haki ya Mshtakiwa: Mshtakiwa ananyimwa haki yake ya kikatiba ya kusikilizwa kabla ya uamuzi muhimu unaoathiri haki zake kutolewa. Huu ni ukiukwaji wa msingi wa “audi alteram partem” (sikiliza upande wa pili), unaoambatana na haki ya kusikilizwa kwa haki.  * Ukinzani na Katiba: Hali hii inakinzana waziwazi na Ibara ya 13(6)(a) ya Katiba, ambayo inahakikisha kila mtu ana haki ya kusikilizwa kwa haki. 2. Kutofichua Utambulisho, Mahali, Kauli, na Nyaraka za Shahidi (Kifungu cha 194(1)(b) & (c), 194(2) cha CPA na Kanuni ya 3, 6(1)(a)(v), 6(1)(c)(ii))  * Vifungu Husika:    * CPA Kifungu cha 194(1)(b) & (c): Inaruhusu kutofichua au kuweka mipaka juu ya utambulisho au mahali alipo shahidi, na kutofichua kauli au nyaraka zinazoweza kusababisha utambulisho wa shahidi.    * CPA Kifungu cha 194(2): Inasisitiza kuwa taarifa hizi hazitatolewa kwa mshtakiwa wakati wa uchunguzi wa awali (committal) au kesi.    * Kanuni ya 6(1)(a)(v): Inaruhusu shahidi kutoa ushahidi “kwa kutumia vifaa vya kupotosha au kubadilisha picha au sauti, au akiwa haonekani.”    * Kanuni ya 3: Inafafanua “kizimba maalum cha shahidi” kama sehemu iliyoundwa kumwezesha shahidi kutoa ushahidi “bila kuonekana isipokuwa kwa jaji au hakimu anayeendesha shauri husika.”  * Athari kwa Haki ya Mshtakiwa: Haki ya mshtakiwa kumwona shahidi na kumuhoji ana kwa ana ni nguzo muhimu ya haki ya kusikilizwa kwa haki. Kutojua shahidi ni nani, au kutokuwa na uwezo wa kumwona au kujua mahali alipo, kunafanya iwe vigumu sana, au hata haiwezekani, kwa wakili wa utetezi kuhoji ushahidi kwa ufanisi. Mikataba ya kimataifa ya haki za binadamu, kama vile Ibara ya 14(3)(e) ya Mkataba wa Kimataifa wa Haki za Kiraia na Kisiasa, inasisitiza haki ya mshtakiwa kumhoji shahidi anayemshuhudia. Kutoona shahidi kunafanya haki hii kuwa tupu.  * Ukinzani na Katiba: Hali hii inakinzana moja kwa moja na Ibara ya 13(6)(a) na Ibara ya 13(6)(b). Mshtakiwa hawezi kujitetea kwa ufanisi dhidi ya shahidi asiyejulikana, na dhana ya kutokuwa na hatia inakuwa batili wakati mshtakiwa ananyimwa zana muhimu za kuthibitisha kutokuwa na hatia yake. 3. Utoaji Ushahidi kwa Njia ya Video au Simu Bila Uwepo Halisi Mahakamani (Kifungu cha 194(1)(a) cha CPA na Kanuni ya 6(1)(b))  * Vifungu Husika:    * CPA Kifungu cha 194(1)(a): Inaruhusu ushahidi wa shahidi kutolewa kwa njia ya video (video conferencing) kwa mujibu wa Sheria ya Ushahidi.    * Kanuni ya 6(1)(b): Inaruhusu utoaji wa ushahidi kupitia “mkutano kwa njia ya video akionekana kwa jaji au hakimu anayesikiliza shauri” au “mkutano kwa njia ya simu.”  * Athari kwa Haki ya Mshtakiwa: Ingawa tunathamini maendeleo ya