* 75. The Respondent State on its part submits that the Applicant was represented throughout his trial before the High Court and Court of Appeal. He was provided with free legal aid by the State before the High Court and represented by Advocate Kayaga, and that during his appeal, he was represented by Advocate Kabuguzi. The Respondent State avers that it was an afterthought by the Applicant to claim before this Court that he was not accorded a counsel of his choice, a claim he did not raise during the trial proceedings. 76. The Respondent State concurs with the Applicant regarding his claim that Advocate Kabuguzi, did represent the State during the preliminary hearing as a State Attorney on 11 December 1998, in accordance with the Tanzania Penal Code and Criminal Procedural Laws and furthermore, during his appeal at the Court of Appeal. The Respondent State contends that despite this irregularity, there was no miscarriage of justice. 77. The Respondent States avers, that at all material times during the proceedings at the trial and on appeal the Applicant did neither raise this issue nor object to the appointed counsel on his representation. According to the Respondent State, the Applicant accepted the representation and did not at any particular time refuse to cooperate with the appointed counsel. It is the Respondent State’s contention that this allegation should therefore be dismissed as it is devoid of merit. *** 78. Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter provides that: 1. Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: … (c) The right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice. 20