authorities, who bear a responsibility of unwavering diligence, especially
when significant penalties are at stake.34
122. In the instant case, the Court notes from the record that the Applicant was
arrested on 30 April 2003 and subsequently interrogated by the police,
leading to a confession on 2 May 2003. It was only nine (9) years later that
he was formally informed of the charges against him on 19 September 2012.
The Applicant’s preliminary hearing was held on 21 November 2012 and his
trial began nine (9) months later on 26 September 2013 and the conviction
verdict was delivered on 10 October 2013.
123. The Court observes that the protracted timeline of events saw an excessive
lapse of time from the moment of arrest to the initiation of the trial, during
which the Applicant was in pre-trial detention, amounting to ten (10) years,
four (4) months, and twenty-seven (27) days. Regrettably, the Respondent
State did not furnish any justification for this delay, nor do the circumstances
of the case offer any discernible explanations for this inordinate delay.
124. The Court notes, from the trial court proceedings, that during the trial
commenced some witnesses were unable to recollect some of the details
surrounding the criminal incident as the incident occurred long time ago. 35
Undoubtedly, this situation significantly influenced the accuracy and
reliability of the evidence presented by the witnesses, leading to a certain
degree of erosion in the trial’s integrity. It is important to note that the
emotional distress endured by the Applicant during the prolonged period of
uncertainty awaiting his trial further added to the gravity of the situation.
125. Based on the aforementioned considerations, the Court concludes that the
delay of more ten (10) years in beginning the trial was undeniably
34
Guehi v. Tanzania (Merits and Reparations), supra, §§122-124; See also Thomas v. Tanzania
(merits), supra, § 104; Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits)
(2016) 1 AfCLR 507, § 155; and Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (merits), supra, §§ 92-97, 152;
Henerico v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 82.
35 See for example, PW 2 statement, High Court Proceedings, p. 13.
31