133. The Court observes that the pre-trial period ran from the time the Applicant
was arrested on 31 August 2003, to the time the trial commenced on 22 July
2010, this being a period of six (6) years, ten (10) months and twenty-two
(22) days. The Court therefore has to determine whether this pre-trial period
can be considered as reasonable, taking into account the relevant factors.
134. The Court recalls its jurisprudence that where an Applicant is in custody, the
Respondent State bears an obligation to ensure that the matter is handled
with due diligence and expeditiously, especially where there are no
impediments caused by the Applicant and the delay is not caused by
complexities of the case.50 Furthermore, the Court recalls that various
factors are considered in assessing whether justice was dispensed within a
reasonable time within the meaning of Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter. These
factors include the complexity of the matter, the behaviour of the parties,
and that of the judicial authorities, who bear a duty of due diligence in
circumstances where severe penalties apply.51
135. The Court notes that the Applicant was in pre-trial custody for a period of
six (6) years, ten (10) months and twenty-two (22) days. The Court observes
that the Respondent State did not provide any reasons as to why the
Applicant’s trial commenced six (6) years, ten (10) months and twenty-two
(22) days after his arrest. It generically states that “the proceedings during
the trial were fair and all requirements were met as envisaged under this
provision and that the prosecution… were conducted in accordance with the
governing laws and procedures”.
136. The Court also notes that there is nothing on the record to show that the
Applicant impeded the progress of the investigations before his arraignment
at the High Court or that the case was not a complex one. Furthermore,
there were no multiple applications filed or adjournments requested as
50
See Guehi v. Tanzania, supra, §§ 122-124. See also Alex Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), § 104 Wilfred
Onyango Nganyi and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2016) 1 AfCLR 507, § 155; and
Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (merits) (2014) 1 AfCLR 219, §§ 92-97, 152; Henerico v.
Tanzania, supra, § 86.
51 Henerico v. Tanzania, ibid, § 85.
37