0001?9 who was, an indigent, layman, not represented by a lawyer, it can hardly be said that the Applicant has been afforded equal protection of the law and the right to a fair trial". 75. The Respondent State denies this and argues that the Applicant was afforded the right to be heard and defend himself in the presence of his co-accused and witnesses, he was given the opportunity to cross examine all witnesses who testified against him and that he had the right to appeal. The Respondent State admits that the Applicant was not represented by a lawyer during the trial, but argues that the Applicant did not ask for legalassistance as per its LegalAid Act No. 21 of 196g. 76. ln terms of Article 7 (1) (c) "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." 77 . Even though Article 7 (1) (c) of the Charter guarantees the right to defence, including the right to be assisted by counsel of one's choice, the Court notes that the charter does not expressly prescribe the right to free legal assistance. 78. ln its judgment in the Mafter of Alex Thomas v. The tJnited Repubtic of Tanzania, this Court however stated that free legal aid is a right intrinsic to the right to a fair trial, particularly, the right to defence guaranteed in Article 7 (1) (c) of the Charter.ls ln its previous jurisprudence, the Court also held that an individual charged with a criminal offence is automatically entitled to the right of free legal aid, even without the individual having requested for it, where the interests of justice so require, in particular, if he is indigent, the offence is serious and the penalty provided by the law is severe.ro 79. ln the instant case, it is not in dispute that the Applicant was not afforded free legal aid throughout his trial. Given that the Applicant was convicted of serious rs Alex Thomas judgment, para. 114. 'o lbid, para. 123, see also Mohamed Abubakai judgrnent, pa ras. 138-13 19 VE