104. The Court recalls its established position that Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, as read together with Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR, guarantees for anyone charged with a serious criminal offence, the right to be automatically assigned counsel free of charge whenever the interests of justice so require.28 105. The Court further recalls that it has previously considered the issue of effective representation in a similar case and held that the right to free legal assistance comprises the right to be defended by counsel.29 However, this right to choose one’s own counsel is not absolute when exercised within the framework of a free legal assistance programme. The Court also emphasised that the key concern is the provision of effective legal representation, rather than the ability to select a lawyer of personal preference.30 106. In this regard, the Court affirms that it is the duty of the Respondent State to provide adequate representation to an accused person and intervene only when the representation is not adequate.31 If, however, there are allegations of ineffective legal representation, it is important, that all such allegations must be backed by evidence.32 107. As this Court recognised in its caselaw,33 a State cannot be held accountable for every shortcoming on the part of a lawyer appointed for legal aid purposes. The quality of the defence offered is fundamentally contingent on the rapport between the client and their representative. State intervention is warranted only when there is evident failure by the lawyer to furnish effective representation. 28 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), § 124, Isiaga v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 72; Onyachi and Njoka v. Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 65 § 104, Mwita v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 121 29 Rutechura v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 73 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid, § 74, Mwita v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 122. 32 Ibid. 33 Henerico v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), §§ 108-109, Mwita v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 123. 27