DAR ES SALAAM: THE Court of Appeal has upheld the 20 years imprisonment sentence imposed on four people over trafficking Heroine Hydrochloride weighing 65,730.67 grams and Cocaine Hydrochloride weighing 30,537.51 grams, valued at 3.36bn/-.
Justices Berke Sehel, Panterine Kente and Paul Kihwelo ruled against Mirzai Pirbakhshi, alias Hadji, alias Ally Mirzai, Aziz Juma Kizingiti, Said Mashaka Mrisho and Abdulrahman Mtumwa Lukongo after dismissing their appeal they had lodged to fault the judgment of the High Court.
"We find this appeal totally lacking in merit. We hereby dismiss it in its entirety," the justices of the appeals court, which is currently the highest temple of justice in Tanzania, declared in their judgment delivered recently in Dar es Salaam.
During hearing of the appeal, the four convicts, who are appellants were represented by Advocates Nehemia Nkoko, Josephat Mabula and Jeremia Mtobesya.
On the other hand, the Republic was represented by Principal State Attorney Flora Massawe, who teamed up with Senior State Attorneys Clara Charwe, Sabrina Josh and Batilda Mushi as well as Amina Mawoko, Titus Aron and Ms. Glory Kilawe, all State Attorneys.
The appellants had faulted the High Court judgment by advancing several grounds, notably challenging that the information or charge sheet filed against them was defective since it did not indicate the mode in which trafficking in drugs took place and that it was omnibus.
They alleged that the exhibits tendered during the trial were irregularly admitted because they were not listed during committal proceedings, the committal proceeding was nullity for want of assignment of the magistrate concerned and the trial Judge did not adequately address the assessors on vital points of law which rendered their opinion worthless.
Deliberating on such grounds of appeal, the justices started by resolving the one on the alleged defectiveness of information or charge sheet and came to the conclusion that the same was without merit.
ALSO READ: Youth in Tanga urged to heighten fight against illegal drugs
They pointed out that, the prosecution was undeniably right that the information is evidently in compliance to the mandatory provisions of sections 132 and 135 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) as it contains the statement of the offence charged under section 16 (1) (b) (i) of the Act.
"The information further provides particulars of the offence which are necessary for giving reasonable information on the nature of the offence charged as required by the law and nothing more," the justices said.
Furthermore, they were unable to see how the information was omnibus and therefore embarrassed or prejudiced the appellants in mounting their defence as counsel for the appellants argued.
As rightly argued by the prosecution, the justices said, the appellants were apprehended together trafficking in narcotic drugs in two cars that were moving together in one mission and this was ably proved by the evidence on record.
"Trying as hard as we can to follow the appellants' counsel reasoning, we are unable to see, how the appellants were unable to mount their defence, embarrassed or prejudiced since they knew the charge, they were facing all along and heard all the prosecution witnesses," they said.
On the ground relating to the admission of exhibits, the justices pointed out that the record of appeal bears out clearly that when the matter came for committal proceedings on February, 23, 2015, the presiding magistrate indicated the listed documents whose contents were read.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Such documents included the two certificates of value of the narcotic drugs the appellants stood charged with.
Furthermore, they noted, the prosecution informed the court that other physical exhibits would be tendered during trial.
"Apart from that, when the matter was set for preliminary hearing on March 7, 2016, the were all listed. In the circumstances, it is not insignificant to say that it defies logic and common sense to allege that the appellants were prejudiced," the justices said.
As regard to the complaint on court assessors, they noted that records of proceedings are clear that the trial Judge summed up the case to the assessors.
