74.The Applicant explains that at no time during the procedure was he informed of the possibility of obtaining free legal assistance as prescribed by law; that the Respondent had the positive obligation to notify the Appticant, suo motu, of the existence of such right; that this obtigation is even primordial where the individual concerned is a lay person and an indigent detainee facing a serious charge; that this is also the position of this Court in Alex T'homas and Mohamed Abuba'kari v. United Republic of Tanzania, and that these precedents should equally apply in the instant case. T5.According to Article 7 (1) (c) of the Charter, "Every individualshall have the right to have his cause heard, This right comprises: a)-.. b)... c) the rlght to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice...". T6.Article 14.(3) (d) of the Covenant on its part provides that "ln the determination of any criminal eharge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: a)... b) .. c)... d) To be tried in his presence, and to defend lrimself in person or thr:ough legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so req,uire, and without payment by him in any such oase if he does not have sufficient means to pay for itl' 77 .ln its Judgment in filohamed Abubakari vs United Republic af Tanzania, this Court held that "an indigent individual under proseoution for a criminal offence has W 18 r it) (' l-/ /' ) €--r5 >Fttt