Tanzania wins case at African Court

By
Francis Ameyibor, GNA

Accra, Dec. 9, GNA –
The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights has ruled that Tanzania has not
violated the rights of Jibu Amir alias Mussa and Said Ally alias Mangaya in the
case brought before it by the two convicts.

The Applicants are
nationals of Tanzania (the Respondent State). The two who are currently serving
a prison sentence of 30 years after being convicted of the offence of armed
robbery contrary to Sections 285 and 286 of the Respondent State’s Penal Code
by the District Court of Temeke at, Temeke, Dar es Salaam on February 25, 2004
brought a case against the State. 

According to African
Court ruling made available to the Ghana News Agency in Accra, the Applicants
alleged that Tanzania violated their rights under Articles Article 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6 and 7(1)(c) and (2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights by
pronouncing an “improper” sentence on them, failing to inform them of their
right to Counsel and by denying them free legal assistance during the trial and
appellate proceedings.

They thus sought
reparations, particularly an order for release from prison and monetary
compensation to remedy the alleged violations. 

The Government of
Tanzania raised series of objections to the application, but the African Court
ruled that having satisfied itself that the Application compiled with all other
conditions of admissibility set out in Article 56 of the Charter and Rule 40 of
the Rules and found that the Application is admissible.  

The African Court
also considered whether Tanzania violated the Applicants’ rights under Articles
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7(1)(c) and (2) of the Charter by examining three issues,
which it deemed to be central to the Applicants’ grievances.

Accordingly, the
first issue it addressed under the right to a fair trial was whether the
sentence imposed on the Applicants was illegal and thus, violated their rights
under Article 7(2) of the Charter; the African Court found that the penalty for
armed robbery in Tanzania is 30 years’ imprisonment.

 “Therefore, the Applicants were properly
sentenced and their rights were not violated in this regard,” the African Court
stated.

On the issue that
the Applicants were not provided with free legal assistance during their trial
and appeals, the African Court found that the Respondent should have provided
the Applicants with free legal assistance. 

The African Court
emphasised that the interests of justice required the provision of free legal
assistance as the Applicants were accused of a serious crime, which carried a
minimum custodial sentence of 30 years imprisonment and that they were
indigent, unable to hire their own lawyers.

The African Court
therefore held that the Applicants’ right under Article 7(1)(c)of the Charter
was violated.

On the determination
whether Tanzania violated the Applicants’ right to receive information; the
African Court observed that the allegation relates more to the right to be
informed of the right to Counsel than to the right to information.

In this regard, the
African Court stated that although the right to be informed of one’s right to
Counsel is not expressly stipulated in Article 7 of the Charter, Article 14 (3)
(d) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and (ICCPR)
clearly prescribes that all accused persons have the right to be informed of
their right to have legal representation. 

By interpreting
Article 7 (1) (c) of the Charter as read together with Article 14 (3) (d) of
the ICCPR, the Court found that Tanzania has violated the Applicants’ the right
to be informed of their right to Counsel by failing to inform them as such
prior to, or in the course of their trial and appeals.    

On pecuniary
reparations, the African Court awarded the Applicants Tanzanian Shillings Three
Hundred Fifty Thousand (TZS 350,000) each as fair compensation for the moral
prejudice they suffered from the violations as regards the denial of free legal
assistance and the right to be informed of their right to counsel.

The Respondent Said
it was required to pay the amount free from tax within six months of the
notification of the judgment failing, which it would pay interest on arrears
calculated on the basis of the applicable rate of the Central Bank of Tanzania
throughout the period of delayed payment until the amount is fully paid. 

On non-pecuniary
reparations, the African Court dismissed the Applicants’ prayer that it orders
their release.

The African Court
held that the Applicants did not sufficiently demonstrate nor did it
established that their conviction and sentencing were based on arbitrary
considerations or occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the Applicants. 

The African Court
ordered Tanzania to submit a report on the status of implementation of the
Court’s decision within six months from the date of notification of the
judgment.  

The Court ordered
that each Party should bear its costs.

GNA