89. As already noted in paragraph 79 above, the Parties submitted the same
arguments made under the alleged violation of the right to dignity. In view
of this, the Court will not belabour the consideration of this claim. It suffices
to state that the records reveal that the Court of Appeal of Tanzania
ascertained through a voir dire, that the Applicant’s caution statement was
recorded freely without the use of force and this was collaborated by witness
statements. The voir dire resulted into the caution statement being admitted
as part of the evidence.
90. This Court previously held in the Matter of Mohamed Abubakari v. United
Republic of Tanzania, that a fair trial requires that where a person faces a
heavy prison sentence, that person must be convicted on strong and
credible evidence.34
91. The Court notes that, as records on file illustrate, the evidence relied upon
by the High Court was the caution statement, collaborated testimonies from
4 witnesses and 3 exhibits including the Medical Examination Report as well
as the Applicant’s testimony. This Court further notes that both the High
Court and the Court of Appeal concluded that there was sufficient evidence
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Applicant committed the crime
for which he was charged.
92. The Court observes from the records that the issue of circumstantial
evidence provided by PW1 was duly analysed by the High Court.35 The High
Court observed that the contradictions raised by the Applicant regarding the
date of disappearance and date of death of the deceased called into
question his singular knowledge of the events leading to the murder and
cast doubt on his innocence, in essence implicating him. The Court also
observes that the allegation that the case was not proved beyond a
reasonable time because of the Applicants previous record as a thief is not
justified because it was never brought up during the trial. Consequently, this
Court finds that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate how the Respondent
34
35
Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits), supra, §§ 191-192.
See page 14 to 16 of the High Court Judgment.
26