A PROSECUTION witness, Inspector Hassan Masangi, told the High Court's Corruption and Economic Division here on Tuesday that claims allegedly linking businessman Yanga Omary Yanga, his wife and house girl with trafficking serious narcotic drugs are true.
"I am the one who conducted the investigations into this case. These claims are true," said Inspector Msangi, who is the seventh prosecution witness.
He was being cross-examined by defence team for the accused persons, when giving evidence before Judge Imakulata Banzi.
In the trial, Yanga, nicknamed 'Rais wa Tanga' meaning, 'Tanga president', is charged jointly with his wife Rahma Juma and their house girl Halima Mohamed, of trafficking 1052.63 grams of Heroin Hydrochloride, which are narcotic drugs.
The offence, according to the prosecution led by Principal State Attorneys Faraja Nchimbi, Pius Hilla as well as State Attorneys Constantine Kakula and Donata Kazungu, is alleged to have been committed on October 1, 2018 at Bombo area in Tanga City.
During cross-examination session, one of the defence advocates, Advocate Majura Magafu told the court that what the witness heard about his clients were untrue and mere street rumors.
In his response, however, the witness informed the court that he started investigating the matter since August 26, 2018.
Inspector Msangi, who is an investigator with the Drug Control and Enforcement Authority (DCEA), testified that the investigation process went on until October 1, 2018 when Yanga Omary Yanga was arrested.
According to the witness, he had observed the businessman receiving the drugs at Mwambani Dump Port in Tanga City in a motor vehicle; a Tayota Land Cruiser, from an unknown person who was not arrested because he ran away from the scene.
The witness told the court that after receiving a tip off about the missions, he arranged a plan to observe Yanga while receiving the narcotic drugs.
"We were two, I was with Corporal Joseph. It is me who saw him (Yanga) receiving the drugs," Inspector Msangi testified.
During cross-examination, however, the witness admitted to have not recorded in the statement before the police such "story" he was briefing the court. Part of the cross-examination session between the advocate and the witness went as follows;
Advocate: Didn't you see the necessity of including this story in your recorded statement?
Witness: Such story you are referring to was not necessary.
Advocate: But normally, the government works are done by documenting.
Witness: Yes, but what I did, is to state briefly, hoping that I could have explained in detail when I come to court.
Advocate: What would have happened if you were not here today? How could we have known what you are telling us here?
Witness: I don't know. God knows.
Advocate: Did you participate in the searching exercise on October 1, 2018?
Witness: No, I did not participate
Advocate: Did you discover in your investigation that Yanga was involved in the wholesale business?
Witness: Yes, it is true
Advocate: When did he (Yanga) start such business?
Witness: I don't know.
Advocate: Did you also discover that his wife was dealing with poultry farming?
Hearing of the case continues on Wednsday (November 18,2020).