P.C Samwel and Others vs Reublic (High Court Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 1977) [1978] TZHC 178 (6 April 1978)

. .. -".1.\ .. , ..... .. •'\ ·:t :' ; ·• .. •·· IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA- AT OODOMA. APPELLATE JURISDICTION HIGH -eouRT CRIMINAL ·APPF:Ai No. 2si oF 177 • ··,. ; < •• , • . . ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE: 9 ..... 23. OF lt:>71 Kr DOOOMA • ,'\ ! . or THE DISTRICT. COURT OF DODOMA DISTRICT . • . :.-·i• ·. Ji .,;}.- ;. . . . Be:f·dF'J .s·., R.'. }<il.hngwa:· ••• -- •• • ~ ., ••. • ·.• .• ·Re·;#den·t Magi..a.trat . _-,, . . . \l • . . ·. ' . --· P.C. S},½WEL ·AND .TWO ·O-THERS ••••• - - ........ }ppellants (f'r1Jiti4 .l\ceuseds) •·._i:,". yrsus·_-: .. • .. _·.- ,1 . ·• -. 0 • • ••• •••••• • .Respodent ·: . ·: · foriginal rosecutor-) ·· ·charrie• . I of • • •• ,1 • .• • • • • •• . . I Obtaining money. by -f also . pre~. -ary-w 48-d::i°" ~ - .9f !te- Penal. CO<ie• ... ~ .. , JUDGMENT t ... · .. ·. :t -'c_,·J • • ·- ;. ~ 1 • ' . • •• .. • . • • .'. . .::.,r : ·.: .. . .._ ·:_; .· :en the month Df May, 1976 the Dodoma Poliee appear to . ,,., , ... . ·. hay-. pu·t ?1,. ;road block on eat:h of ·the· m·ain roads leading Jo the ·: .,-.'.c:apittU dnd a,t.Efo.ch bqrr.ie.r ther.e:werE'! two.or thrte·policemen in :,:: .'.' .thr;-:::t~· r-oci-he-clock shifts.· .on the: evening of May 15 there . ,. ... ,, -:- :_:: ·' -.ocurrcl an incidnt at the 'police barrier on the D.ir es Salaam . '/oolomn .- Ro.ad. ahout· fiv~ ,miles. from -t-hc c·apital'. 'There. at about , .: '. 5~)0 ,p .• :m•'. the car of ·P .• W.l,·. aii· ·expatria_t~ ·doctor wi th..-,1-f;ttle ··. :. ·· ,.'kfl,WGq(}C of Ki.swahil:i was·. stopped ·a·s he ·was dri•ving towards the . , ·, >· -capital being accompaned by PW.2,. his if. . . ., •• • ;;. t :• - :•, • ~ •• • • •," • ~ • • • ,:•r• .. )> • • . . : .'After one of the thri.:le policemen on' duty :!searching the ear withe.nit finding whatev;r ·they were looking ·for, h~ nevethelss :i ord6rcd P.W.l to driv~ ·.ttH car to a• parking position on the 'side of the _ro..<l,. this ;app·ar8ntiy·bcause he did ··not :nave his driving licence · .or i,<;1-::,1,1tity ca,rd: with ·nim. Thcy would not· allow him to proceed de spit' :.his asurin·g them he had, a. valid· drivinq licence which he had howv:t..,r left behind, but· in t°he ehd, they indicated a willingm,?ss to '1~~1;: i::hum proc;:eed · providd th_ey ,paid some ·mon,;;!y, which. the ·· cornpl 'ai.nunts understood to be · a fine:, especially as in their own country traffic of·ficcr~ often ivy .on-the-sp6t fines against traffic offenders. Accordin0ly• he· paid them )hs. 240/=, that , .being the on'ly .mon_ey they h_act·.on them. _They .e.i:-e then .allowed to · ·.-pro• .. C!d ·but they soon bcc:ame -suspicious of the legality of· the d0m&ld. to pay, and on tlie next day or so, they _reported this inc.:h:li.:.:nt to the· Regi.onal- ]fol;ice Authorities.' They howe-ver · appQr to have been extrem<i:ly dilatory in their investigations for, althoU<Jh . .:it should have .b,,cn a relntively task ·to check; against the re:co.t-ds "i:lt. ,te police sttion in order. t'0 know which. offic?:?rS were tltM'l:· .·'on .ctby at that ba'rri.:1r, no proceedings appear to, })ave b :en set in ;o.tj,:bn until a little. over orie .year latl:!r· -when the· thrte .. applio.nts in• this c:1s~:· wcrE::! broUCJht to court charged with · . obtu.if1:ing.J:iy :f·a.ls~ pre-tences, namel'y, that, 'falsely ·pretending th<-,y h,°"d author-ity to fine tht.; -complainant fr,r not haviflg. a:. dr'i ving ,,{1i'e:...:nce;, th1JY optain•Jd t:he 240/ts from-him~-: ·,:-tty wer each · . ':onv;iG:t,d ·as chai- .. <):id \tind·;s; ntenc-d to._ 5 ·yearst ·1rnpriso_nnK=nt, Aairlst the· ct.:nviction qnq .-sentnce they have· ap.,.paa-led·· :to this court" t11rough. the l;:arnc,d · advocate, •M+:• -Charnb\lk'e-., ; ,. · . • .... ~ ..i • • . . :-- ... :·~ .!-!- '· ~. :· ' - . . .. ". • 1 ·, • .. \ - · . .. / : .. ~~~ __. ... >.£.t'- ... ~~-- ·. ,1

• ·- -- /The

.. ; ' ,··. I;-'• . . . ·. 2 That the alleged ·incident occurred in the circumstances nurrnt-:.:d by P.W.l arid P.W.2 is not disputed, and the only issue considcr0d by the trial court was whethcir the: appellants were the prsons who were then qn duty.at that rpaq block as was claimed by the prosecution. Thre is agreement that tht,y were all constubles involved i·n that op,.ration and t;hat cm the relevant.:day they were supposc.:d tc take ever at that post from P.W.4 and one constable Enock at: _6.oo· p.m. ·-and guurd thc:re· ;unti•l. a.oo. a.m. on the next day. Th1r predecessors at. that post had however to l-i°o1d on until their arrival and•; ie would a.ppe~: they were to be ferried back on the: sc.un;:; vehicle as .. ,bad b,t9ught t)1e appellants. The appellants denied tht thre was any•it,.cidc.nf: at ''thtJ.t ·post that -night while they were on duty and th,.'3.t,. th,=Y h,1d seen any white man th,re. :It WuS u cru,ci-n.l.;',poi.nt /, th~~re:Etr' ''whe'thi.r at· th~ relevant'. time they w-:;r.::: alr~ ndy., g_uai;:ding .:it thut posto. · _ .. <· . · ::1 =.- .--; - i:':; · t . . : .... • ... , ..... , . , .P.,W.,.l and PoW.2 c.ould ,not be clear precisely as to w11¢n thc.;y_j-{;/t'·t_·~~r. : They· s.:1id. it was· any time b2tween_ S.3 ;id,;.S •. lei>,-l an,o}J. .. t,s. saiq,,:•:·0.;.:·ti'le oth~:r hand, that they <Jdt there late, , ::·"'- . at:·6~,4:s.,,,::Jl1i be_f-:/.-.although they· l~!ft the po 7 ice station at:.S·JO •. · p.m. _th:,! vc·hic-le got" a f'lc1t tyre t;U the way and it took consider& timu to replace the tyre, while it dropped guards at the other · ro"'ad blocks :J:>efore. finally takil'lg 'ttie·in•:·to their post •. : .Against tl1S,''howevei;:., .'.it would .:ippcar from the complain,Jnt 1 s ·evidence and thc1t,. of .:E>. W. :(•p c.l,*prgyIJ# . who· p·us"set! ··there and saw them, hat •· ·J! t)t.e}f·'.2.1.C.U<.!:.,h-d;d'. up-·ror·,· .. uhuut one .and-a-half hours •. ·. It :would, therefore, :--.:P.:tr they ~~re not allowed to. pro_ceed until: after 7 .oo p-ni.. · · · By th;:i:t time the appellants, un- their· own admission, must- have , , ...... -·-· ... ,- to.ken ovor the cc,mmand. The culprits must have been either in the shift cf the appellillltS ur in thcit of P.w.4' and Enock. P.W.4 in his E;;vid .. mct.! S'lid the app12).J.Ql1,t_$..:....h,d rElj,ev1.-,d them by ,.oo p.m. but h-2 cu.uld ·not say what m,3.de him th 9 t sure considering the long ··lapse ·of tim;::; of more than c;nc year.· ·on'.e··factor ·does howevet:, .. se,pp_.a.r:_.,· .. d1;_7:cisivu of which shift; there is genera·1 agreement that the shift of -'P.W4 ·comprised tw mdn on1f;·-anl11 th.J.t of the appelLmts. thrc-e __ guards. P-Wi and··P.Wo2··are cle.u.r they .saw thr<:?e po•licemen. . That b:iw.f·so, · there :·b2ing no .sgestion. that· two.:shifts spoke to th,:i · cunipi'arn:ants during the· relevant ·period,· the· ·only shift· thnt dc0.lt,\r:irth them was th at. of• the appell.:mts. Accordingly, I am-respectfully ia: agr .. ,ei:n,:mt with. the· It: arncd resident. magistrate. in:,;h;i_s: judgmnt. that· the complainu.rits we.1: -stopped, searched and int4rro,:Jtcd by-'the· appclL:11:ts• shi·ft.- . on the basis c,f this finding· and aving regard· to the ,;; :."Jevidcnc:./ thntthe coniplainnnts understood ·the, culprits to be levyil-'ii( a 1 fine, the: lower· court proceeded to- convict of obtaining by' f.ti.ls6 ·prct¢rice. · · It- howe_ver seems to have ·b.een ubl.:i:.vious of aria .0.t''two·ottif!r i:nport;mt ccnside.rati,cns • . First+Yt. ··:fiorder to convict of s-μch offence. th:!re had :·:to =bu 0v:i:dcncl3 . before the • c.oi.irt · that the . appeilo.nts fraudulently . rcpr0s-:.'.i-').t)d that. thy l}d authority to levy. a, fine for P.W.l not haVfhg .'u driving 1·ient:e en him, and that _-they .did not in. fact · . hn.vc such auth ot-i t{. .. The:re w c1s· howev,~r . nc./:e,vidence led to show · thG·'nplJc.::H.unts lacked:-uthcrity tuYlevy·-a firie in those circumstances, andiii; is,pEfrt.inent :t:b point 0ut! t:itut, umfer --95 of the Road . '.rruf£ic .Act/ a pol,ic· officer can, for of;fences specified b'y th0,- . . . Minist .. ,,:r·, punish a traffic offender;:by imposing a. fine. There is, -of coursC!, • .a procedure' ·l.:lid de.Mn· for.: lev.yihg -uch fine, . which does . -not cJ.pi,s& tc ~.;h,v,rb.e(n. followed· at Lil-1 in. this case·,: but it is • ·do\Jbtfui {' ·:5U<t,h)i.9n-c0mplinnce is nec·essarily proof that the police offic,.;r, to his- knowledge., !'lad no authori·ty summarily to · f;inc.: . th-::i" 0·ffe_ndr. ospoa@i1ly if .. 1:e · fermer. deetl .Qot·it,,6ppen t• · 'ljf:t:' an i:·oi'ricer' q·g.ularly -assigned· to traffic duties,. who s apt to ·be-'.. i. , more coriv,rsant,.with thC legislatt.oii th';;,· a ·ccnst,'lbl.-·i.:n . .flbe i1fH:.d .. Fo.i:;ce .-Uiiiti ,as \o{e;e the i3ppE;!llants 'T.Y ...;er howv ably'; ·: .. · . J~. . . , - ' .f, ~ . . • . •' : t,. •.:• .: .. O .:,; • •,f: •P• ~ :,: j,. ~ ••- . . ;_ - -, ..

' ..... ,. 3 ,, ~ \ reprGsc:nted by an agvccat~_ ,cinct th.e :'·ab:siri~~ cf prosecution evi<..kmc.:; ·cle;:irly tD. the ffct that thy · had no authority to a fine. and they_ were aWarl! of this, has not in my judgment . ·1.· -,-:asiuned any injustice o J; have, unly raised the' point to remind that_, in a crimlnril case,; :s.av -.her€.! th· onus;:.9f proof is PY legisl.atiun·.:put ·un the· defenb,:, very ,ingredient of the .cf:rcrice: has t0 be a.:trictly provE'id .. by ·the ·prosc'c:μtL.m at the cutset and _it sht:uld nL..t.,be .ief·tiop,m_ to' .specul.i.tiun .or. to be spplied ·.by the d.efenc<:... tr{ 'this ,case; prosc:utiun evid_cnce · ·w;is w,anti.og · nut Lnly .. ,:1.'s' to ..iljeJhr tJ1c appell.:-:nts were empowered tc, levy a fine but · a.lsu ·:with reg urd to. ··whcth.:)r . . . ( . . . they acccunted :fc.ir. the rne:ney"'. levy . ;' ,:_ of'_greater: dnc,·/rn~ i1owever~.- i~: what intrr .rctution cught !)rt.periy t0 be fiut ,n the ,beh;ivli.,ur and conduct r.,f the applL:irits a~ attribute'd to ·thorn by th~ .. ci;rnplaih,:ints? · To MSWer the quostic:n ·it wculd be ·necessary ·tc, ·state their :ev;i.clence '.:. · ,in groab:fr _qetail. .. · · · · · . The?y fcund cth•!r vehid.es· hc1ving ,b·,•.n stoppe:d by the appfliunts at" th~· read block, -:m,.1 ac:c0rdi_pg t<;-•P.w.i, ;:it thu beginninJ thee · was Uhly L•ne appclla.nt tqlking .. to thorn, ond e1s · .. · imol;'<=-.? vehicles came an~ wee s,topped- ·one. · of_ :the ,.,t_hcr two curnc . - f9rth to a1.k' tc: them· in' plce of th fi_rst. cne •. The 'n.cc?unt uf P.W~2 · is ,t.c, ---.me·. effc.t:,·o . To be xact,-. 0 she s.-1id, sc,:i fnr as ia reievaht::,1..,fKi:t ·. ·. ";;",:, ,·· ., • • ·4,, ... :· • • .• ... 3 " .. .:..o<l;l'e man came to·.:ask :for' the driv:2r•s ric.::ncu. He. was a. Sb ut-loc,kil,lgd.;VErs,.n; ,he was in police uniforrno • •. Wij.:i;.al:k:;.ng · n .lth¥lid swahil,i -: after .10 minutes as we· did net have any identifiation, he orL!n .. u. us to i,iark: the•:.car 'be,;;;idf the; read.· . I th"ught he rne:ntioned . . ' . .I • - ' ' . abc.,ut. sending· us tc• prisun and _to c_c-urt, So wo _v)t sc-ed •. -He tock away th·e keyso ; We ,wa!tcd ·in the.: -c;m- fc.r about ½ ·.an hour- .. Then ,another -different ufficial cai;ne My husband G,?C.pl 9 .inE-id, his·· f¥ in the,·· rccfi: n, · )'le fllt'tl"le.t:' expl .iin:d 'th . f at:_t ()f '·tile. liq-;mce Cdru.1<..>t bo helpe,d; and asked (if),:he was tP pay ,a fine. · Aft,r;t:(,, scmet,i.me canon i.usinde· came .irr;,,b;i.te. car.:- :w'::?·stc.i:,-iJee'.l him" and gave''.irp a letter. to rir. Bern~~lus. to'.;inf=C:.rrn · him we were stranJed. . ' . .. ., ,, :. ::;,-:.;: t'.!l } ) ' -'' .. . . r·.... . -.. - .... , Time as passing, we got ·:·llJc;;e scared. One cf ' • •• • ' ~ • • • p • .. the· three c-ame a"; ain clncl'' o . ..: ·•l'.'e-1 IT'V ··hu$b nn.d · ot• r--£ the Ccj,t' .... o •• He then carne-·back '"Cd::ab, £or ·shs. 5/= ,I <]aV," him khs. 10/r=o He cnrne. back to announce it was shs. 300/=:: -; j'-:.. that···he ha,i misunderstc.od, I. had o:r:ily sh:S·. 240/= which · · I gave to him. I saw him giye _the rnc,nay to cn0 of.:·, . the ·thr.ee officials.a They were· all together. I w.::is · · of the idea it was a fineo I saw cne of them writing ct,.wn nurnbe;r ·c;f the car and name in a no:t;e bc-ok •. 11 • The versicn of her husband is essentially tc th'" sa effe·ct. AS ti~ what ma.de him pay he had this to say: • I,. ~ •• fl •• Ob ~One ,(c,f· thc-im returned tc the car. ancl ih:form-~tl us tha.t if Wt; 1 c:il_ii. pri" we wculd · proc(,ed with th.:1 juurney •••••• I iias net surprised as in .iNeth..:;rlnnds we PilY tc:; the. Traf;f ic Police for such mirfor off()nce ..... 11 · He then <Jt)t the shs. 240/;,,,o From there he" c,;n"i::inued: : V •· ••• '!' • o·. : I CJ ave. the;· money, and then they, wrct:0 in the bo0klet that I gave shs.; 240/=o Th(::!y di'--l·hc;t <Jive me any receipt. · -Th!=! thra:e were. tugl::!th·,: when· I gave ,.,./4 _. ~

thf~ shs •. 240/~~ .;;ht=reafter · I was b..ld I would procGed an_d that next time (wek) even if I did not have :a:. dri_viri<) licence :t w·c,uld just pass wi th0ut w;;,rry,. II _ ._ · As candidly admittecr---bj''-1:he· ccmpai~-ants, t.hoir kfiowleJrJ_b of kisw:3:hili was t<..,c,: scanty to claim ·to hc1v0 undcr- sto,,id clearly what th(~ appelLmts tc..ld · er demanded -of them, and they .c nly get the impressiun that they, were being asked tu pay a fin.:;. But is that in fact what was demanded cf th2m1 I have grav0 d<. ubts if· it was. If th,.: inenticn on the part of th appellunts had been tc levy a:,.fi.ri,1 they wculd net probably haV<i:! w;:isted SC, much cf thr:?ir cwn' t,i.me and that cf· the complainants; they w0uld have __ indic-abd thGir in·tcmtion almost at th.:: outset, c3:nd ·thi-s ·in ·n firm, unarnbigu,,us and unmistakable languarJ•:::. Instencl, however, the appc_llants, or scme of th(m, appear to have deliberntly and ,successfully instilled fear in th1m o.nd then ca:p;italised un it to <Jet the. ml'nG·y.· 'I'hr3.t;- b;> -my mind, wc1s in:tnd"'d_ t:c;:· _s,-licit the ccmpla.in·-mts into bribing tiv . .:m. 'rhat ;this.,was·tne int.ntic.n·s-:ems :tc fit in w·11 with':thc ,:;.ppe:llnnts·• ' accptance c...f shs. 240/c:: instead ·r,f 'sh~.·. 300/c:: - {f0r a fino is net n{,:r'mally. the subj12ct ; f a bargain)··\mct the fact tint in th0 end th,.::y·. assured them thP.y cc,uld ,in fub..1r: ,puss then: frce:ly \md unmolestei wheth- -r er n,;t they. :fr\i). ·a licence. It s,,ms to me then that the appellants. did·· .not repre~~nt::;thy wer.::: _ imposin<J n fin€:! when they. rece_ivod tne lllC-J:lGY-'·bt-. i,atjlr .that th8y wcntc::d , ..... •' a bribe· frcm them sc th~~ they,_ might 'forbecr tc, detain PaWol .and_ t_:·\ke fur"th•.r .act.frn ·acjainst him fer not hnvin 1 J his licence; intact., - . This is an c,fftmce- ,f: si cr:.mpL-.::tely differcmt ch<1ro.ctcr ·frcm th:1t of th(). 6ffGnce 0ivin0 ri~~~ tr_ this appcul ::md this ce,urt .c:/:lllti ni .. t lawfully ·s.·-stitutc_ a c,.nvid:i.:..n of ccrruption. · · The.p is, in any case, one t'10; difficulty. As will have. b;·;c'ri nciteq .£rem the .Ccif\plain:m"t 's eviJence which I ho.V(; qu.oted obove; there· were cth.ir vehicies · arriving at th,:1t post whi.5=!1- n.:.c-eded to be stupped anci::'st.&ched.. That• meunt the c,;mp-la.1.n'uht cculd.--not be;· b.nd were ·not, attended thrOU']hcut th8 time· they· were there, . md in f uct, whtn they were attC;;ndcd except for cne occasicn, (nly rme of them a~ li,":time app:ars to "have b,,en able to ct·o s0·. Le-eking at the -(vJdc,rice, thcre:fore, the ·ctemnnd Wu.S m'1de c.;n ,P.W.1 by dj_e c:f themo ··-Was ;i;t thGn to be •ttriltuted -tc ·the. ether tw0, as .well-,. as havin,g hJ<;J i:l'. ccmmon -ntent with: him,·· The immediate. W)wer might_-_be in thu uffirmativE.: ·11avi"n'J· 1Q miad tb9 evi<,.lence tha·f-thY. were all prf:!sent when the •.. rtlpney W«J.S received by ·c..ne. cf them, ··assuming this is n ccrtuinty but a closer loc;k at the. evi-dence might also su:Jgest it wculd net be sufe to cc.:-nclude sc. The appellant who stoppt.:d, /one se'archt;q and hnd the car p,u-ked may nc..t necessarily ho.v,, hntchecl- up anythin<J _ fraudulent _at th 1t time. The p,-·rs, n whc ne:xt sroke to P.W.l i:. likely t,.:, .b the en<-= wh<.i m<1de the dtiman.J. Thi~ pers'-n cculJ have b•:eri_(.i the thr(,e, includin'] th:1.t app.jllt1nt

who first met and c,rdercd th<.'-! C( mplninants 'tc, park. That pcrscn then recs=ived the muney and ·aIJt,enred t<; jot sch ,!='·f---cci1:ot in his notebl ;.k,: this .in the presenc~~ .:,f _. thti cthr two. It C()Uld not be ascertained, I think, if the L1tbr, <::r one cf_ thGm, ho.c1 collaburat•2d with the rf.::Ceiv(fr. c...r blel). made· 'a"Wcμ=-e of t_h-..! o£f(mce he w c1 9 .- cc. mmi t 1::i_ilCJ. Cl<:),:rly ~ the cJffence of ccrruption was· c,:,rqrtJitb.::cl, but . there. wculd be a lin<J("ri<J .ctd.ibt :fn the enc.l if iii ---th.ti tl1rct= appe:llnnts· coll abcrated in .its c.mmissic,ri~ .. ··' I have alr·;.;;~~1y f, und it unlikely that th;; uIJl",:::11.:mts received the mUriey <..,n the, pretext they were levyirt_<J 2. fin<'", but that did. n0t exclude the p0ssibL.i ty · cf th3t c.rie, or ti-11:,se: two, '_ of th,,~m. thut l.mly saw (.-n,) (.;f them receiving. the mc•n<2y iULl hncl had no · · par:t- in . the fraud, tu think th:,t the m,:.-ney w,1s bE,ing <Ji w:n oth12r than. c1s a bribe. We wc.uld then end up in totnl failure to so.y which _shculd be c, nvicted t:·f c,·rruμtich ,-md Whit:h cf c.btninin(J,

; .. " ~ 1 ~~~~1-t~~"-'-''::->/.:t:"t-;, .... _ . -.:~~"'-·..-.vi.;1f~-4'.:i .;1.--:r-~ f ._ "l~;.;;, ............ f:"t, .. ! .. : •ii,''. ··.·-~ :, ;_;; l'·/ :--;,._ s - & a distinction cculd proporly bQ ade. The ap1xllnnts, er some of them, may be lucky, but for the reascns I have. attempted to give, I find it unsaf to uphold the ct~nvicticns. They are acccrdingly set aside toge th :r with the sentence imposed en each occu.sed. They shcul.d br.i r,.;,~ase<l f'rc..;m <:ustody unless they are otherwise lnWfully t)Q.l.<l, P .M. JONATHAN JUDGE