Arusha, Tanzania Website: www.african-court.org Telephone: +255-272-510-510 JUDGMENT SUMMARY In relation to the alleged violation of the right to a fair trial, the Applicant enumerated four ways in which he believed his right was violated. First, he alleged that the exhibit of the drugs he was allegedly found in possession of was not listed as part of the evidence to be adduced during his trial. Second, he alleged that the chain of custody for the exhibits used against him was broken. Third, he contended that the search and seizure certificate was not signed by the driver of the Fuso bus on which he’d been arrested. Fourth, he averred that the caution statement was taken outside the mandatory four-hour period. Having assessed all the evidence adduced by the Parties, the Court found that the Applicant was arrested, detained and subsequently charged with trafficking the narcotic drug Catha edulis. As the Court further noted, the number of the bundles of the Catha edulis had remained consistent throughout the trial process and that several documents including the expert opinion from a government chemist containing the relevant information were filed before the High Court. The Court further found that all the individuals who prepared these documents were subjected to cross examination and during this time any objection(s) in relation to the evidence could have been raised. The Court thus held that the Applicant had failed to substantiate his allegations. As for the chain of custody, the Court found, from an analysis of the evidence before it, that there was no credible evidence to support the allegation that the chain of custody had been broken such as to violate the Applicant’s rights. The Applicant’s allegation was thus dismissed. Concerning the allegation that the driver of the Fuso bus in which the Applicant had been arrested had not signed the search and seizure certificate, the Court highlighted that all the persons who had signed the seizure certificate, including the Applicant, were at the back of the vehicle while the driver was at the front. Consequently, the Applicant’s allegations were dismissed. Finally, regarding the Applicant’s claim that his caution statement was taken outside the mandatory four-hour period after he was arrested, the Court analysed the timelines and found nothing to prove that an injustice was occasioned against the Applicant. Overall, therefore, the Court dismissed the Applicant’s allegations of a violation of his right to fair trial. 4