00018f 63.The Respondent State further prays the Court to take into account the fact that legalaid is progressively being made available and that it is mandatory in cases of murder and homicide. lt submits that while lega! aid is granted by all its courts, there are however constraints that may impede the mandatory nature of the automatic provision of legal aid in all cases, especially the inadequate number of lawyers to meet this need across the country, as well as the constraint of shortage of financial and other resources. 64.The Respondent State further submits that the right to be represented by a Counsel of one's choice is guaranteed to all those who can afford it. As regards legal aid, however, the Respondent avers that it is neither easy nor practicat to provide the defendant with a pro bono lawyer of his own choice. lt, therefore, prays the Court to take into account the fact that legal aid is not an absolute right and that States exercise their discretionary powers in providing the said aid, depending on their capacity to do so; and this is how the extant legal aid system in the country operates. 65' ln conclusion, the Respondent State indicates that the process of review of its legal aid system is ongoing, and that the outcome will be communicated to the Court in due course. *** 66. The court notes that Article 7(1)(c) of the charter provides "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." 67. The Court notes that even though this Article guarantees the right to defence, including the right to be assisted by counsel of one's choice, the Charter does not expressly provide for the right to free legal assistance. 68. However, in its judgment in the Alex Thomas v. lJnited Repubtic of Tanzania, this Court held 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 C ln its previous jurisprudence, the court arso held that an individual a L5 \h^{_ C \ L_/