Mtwara: Jinsi Askari Polisi akiwemo Mkuu wa Kituo na Upelelezi walivyoshiriki Mauaji ya Mfanyabiashara wa Madini

BARD AI

JF-Expert Member
Jul 24, 2018
3,376
8,118
1700164571114.png
Kamanda wa Polisi Mkoa wa Kipolisi Ilala, Kanda Maalumu ya Dar es Salaam, Kamishna Msaidizi wa Polisi (ACP), Yustino John Mgonja ameieleza Mahakama Kuu Kanda ya Mtwara namna mfanyabiashara wa madini, Mussa Hamis Hamis, alivyouawa.

Pia, amewataja washtakiwa waliokuwepo eneo la tukio na yule anayedaiwa kutekeleza mauaji hayo ya mfanyabiashara huyo aliyekuwa mkazi wa Nachingwea mkoani Lindi.

ACP Mgonja alitoa maelezo hayo jana wakati akitoa ushahidi katika kesi hiyo ya mauaji inayowakabili maofisa saba wa Jeshi la Polisi mkoani Mtwara. Yeye ni shahidi wa tatu wa upande wa mashtaka kati ya mashahidi 72 wanaotarajiwa kuitwa na upande wa mashtaka katika kesi hiyo.

Washtakiwa katika kesi hiyo ya jinai namba 15 ya mwaka 2023 ni pamoja na aliyekuwa Mkuu wa Upelelezi wa Wilaya ya Mtwara, Gilbert Sostenes Kalanje na Mkuu wa Kituo cha Polisi Mtwara, Charles Onyango.

Wengine ni aliyekuwa Ofisa Intelijensia ya Jinai Mkoa wa Mtwara, Nicholaus Kisinza, Marco Mbuta, Mkaguzi wa Polisi, John Msuya, aliyekuwa mganga mkuu wa Zahanati ya Polisi Mtwara, Shirazi Mkupa na Koplo Salim Mbalu.

Maofisa hao wa Polisi wanakabiliwa na shtaka moja la mauaji wakidaiwa kumuua kwa makusudi Mussa waliyemchoma sindano ya sumu katika kituo cha Polisi Mitengo Wilaya ya Mtwara, Mkoa wa Mtwara, Januari 5, 2022.

Hata hivyo, wakati polisi hao wakiwa mahabusu kabla ya kupandishwa kizimbani, mtuhumiwa mwenzao, Grayson Mahembe alidaiwa kujinyonga hadi kufa Januari 22, 2022 akiwa mahabusu.

Kesi hiyo inasikilizwa na Jaji Edwin Kakolaki kutoka Mahakama Kuu Kanda ya Dar es Salaam.

Katika ushahidi wake akiongozwa na mwendesha mashtaka, Wakili wa Serikali Mkuu, Pascal Marungu aliieleza mahakama kuwa Mussa aliuawa na SP Kalanje Kwa kumziba kwa tambala mdomoni na puani, muda mfupi baada ya Dk Msuya (mshtakiwa wa Tano) kumdunga sindano ya usingizi.

Shahidi huyo aliieleza Mahakama kuwa alipata taarifa za tukio hilo baada ya kuwahoji baadhi ya askari waliokuwa zamu katika kituo cha Polisi Mitengo, pamoja na Dk Msuya mwenyewe na ofisa wa polisi, Grayson (marehemu kwa sasa) ambao walisimulia tukio hilo.

Kwa mujibu wa shahidi huyo, siku ya tukio Januari 5, 2022, mshtakiwa wa kwanza, SP Kalanje alimpigia simu Dk Msuya akamtaka waonane na Dk Msuya ambaye al8ikaribisha ofisini kwake katika zahanati ya Polisi na wakazungumza.

Alidai kuwa SP Kalanje alimueleza Dk Msuya kuwa wana mtuhumiwa wao wa wizi wa pikipiki ambaye amekuwa akifanya matukio ya wizi huo maeneo mbali katika mikoa ya Mtwara, Lindi na Dar es Salaam na amekuwa akiwasumbua hivyo wanataka wammalize.

Hivyo alidai kuwa SP Kalanje alimuuliza Dk Msuya kama anaweza kufanya namna ya kupata sindao ya sumu ili wamdunge, lakini Dk Msuya alimjibu kuwa tangu aajiriwe na kuapa kuwa daktari hajawahi kumdunga mtu sindano ya sumu.

Shahidi huyo amedai kuwa badala yake. Dk Msuya alimshauri SP Kalanje wamdunge sindano ya usingi , akizinduka ataanza kueleza matukio yote ya wizi aliyoyafanya, ushauri ambao Kalanje alikubaliana nao.

Kwa mujibu wa shahidi huyo, licha ya SP Kalanje kutaka waende kutekeleza mpango huo wakati huohuo, lakini Dk Msuya alimueleza kuwa wakati huo bado alikuwa na wagonjwa wengine akiwahudumua na akashauri wafanye baadaye.

Saa 8:30 mchana, Kalanje alifika ofisini kwa Dk Msuya kwa ajili ya kutekeleza mpango huo kama walivyokuwa wamekubaliana, hivyo alimuuliza kama alikuwa tayari akamjibu kuwa alikuwa tayari.

Lakini Dk Msuya alimuuliza SP Kalanje mahali alikokuwa huyo mtuhumiwa wao, akamjibu kuwa alikuwa katika kituo cha Polisi Mitengo.

Kwa mujibu wa shahidi huyo, Dk Msuya alisema yeye anaelewa kituo cha Mitengo kina wahalifu sugu hivyo akajua na huyo amehifadhiwa kwa wahalifu sugu, akakubali akaingia kwenye gari na akakaa kiti cha mbele huku gari likiendeshwa na SP Kalanje.

Wakati gari inaondoka pale zahanati, Dk Msuya alihisi kama viti vya nyuma vina watu.

Hivyo aligeuka kutazama akawatambua watu wawili, ambao ni ASP Onyango na A/Insp Grayson waliokuwa wamekaa viti vya pembeni kulia na kushoto na katikati kulikuwa na mtu mwingine ambaye hakuweza kumtambua.

Waliendelea na safari hadi kituo cha Polisi Mitengo na SP Kalanje alishuka akaenda kuzungumza na mkuu wa kituo hicho, Paulo Kiula.

Dk Msuya na askari wale wawili pamoja na yule mtu ambaye hakumtambua nao walishuka wakamfuata SP Kalanje na mkuu wa kituo walipokuwa wanaelekea ndani ya jengo la kituo hicho.

Dk Msuya alimuomba OCS Kiula amuonyeshe Kalanje ofisi moja ambayo aliingia Kalanje, Onyango, Grayson na yule kijana na yeye akabaki nje.

Lakini baada ya dakika tatu hivi, naye alingia ndani ya hiyo ofisi na alimkuta yule kijana amevuliwa shati yuko kifua wazi na mikono yake ikiwa imefungwa kwa kamba kwa nyuma akiwa amelala kwenye sakafu huku akilia.

SP Kalanje alimwambia Dk Msuya amdunge sindano ya usingizi mkono wa kulia yule kijana.

Na baadaye kidogo, Dk Msuya anasema alimsikia Kalanje akisema huyo anawachelewesha, akachukua tambala akamziba yule kijana pua na mdomo.

Anasema baada ya Dk Msuya kuona vile aliamua kutoka nje akawaacha Karanje na wale wenzake na yule kijana akiwa amelala chini.

Lakini baada ya muda mfupi, Kalanje alimuita Dk Msuya akamuuliza, "tayari?" huku akimuonyesha yule kijana pale chini.

Dk Msuya alimuangalia kama hapumui lakini hakumpima ila alielewa lile swali la SP Kalanje kwamba lilikuwa linamaanisha kama amekufa na yeye alijibu kuwa tayari.

Hivyo wote walitoka mle chumbani na kumuacha yule kijana akiwa amelala pale chini.

SP Kalanje alikwenda kwa OCS akachukua kufuli likiwa na funguo akafunga mlango kisha wakaondoka wote akiwa na huo ufunguo, wakapanda gari na kuondoka.

Kamanda huyo wa polisi ambaye ni shahidi, aliieleza Mahakama kuwa baada ya maelezo hayo ya mdomo kutoka kwa Dk Msuya, alielekeza yaandikwe maelezo kama alivyosimulia na maelezo yake yawekwe kwenye jalada la uchunguzi.

“Wakati huo tulimchukulia Dk Msuya kama mtoa taarifa,” alidai Kamanda Mgonja.

Alidai wakati yote hayo yakifanyika, alijiuliza hayo mauaji ni ya huyo kijana Mussa ambaye ndugu zake walikuwa wanamtafuta au kuna mwingine?

"Hivyo nikaagiza atafutwe mjomba wa Mussa Hamis anayeitwa Salum Mombo aje ofini kwangu, alikuja nikamtaka anitafutie picha za Mussa kusudi ili niangalie yule mtu ambaye askari wanasema walimuona akiingia pale Mitengo ndiyo huyu kijana Mussa Hamis au ni mwingine,” alieleza.

Shahidi huyo alieleza kuwa mjomba huyo akiwa ofini kwake alipiga simu Nachingwea kwa baba wa kufikia wa Mussa akamtaka atafute picha zake azitume kwenye gari.

"Kesho yake Januari 22, 2022 zililetwa picha nikazitazama nikamkabidhi ASP Esau ili waendelee na utaratibu wa upelelezi,” alieleza ACP Mgonja.

Alidai kulikuwa na mauaji Januari 21,2022 niliagiza apatikane Grayson ambaye alikuwa mahabusu Tandahimba, kwanza kati ya watu wote waliotajwa yeye alikuwa ametajwa maeneo mengi.

Alieleza kuwa baada ya Grayson kuletwa aliongeza timu ya wapelelezi akiwajumuisha askari watano wa timu ya Task Force waliokuwa wanashughulikia magaidi wakingozwa na SP Simba, hivyo ikawa timu ya wapelelezi 10 akiwemo yeye mwenyewe.

"Tulifikiri kwa pamoja tukakubaliana tumlete Dk Msuya ili asimulie mbele ya Grayson nini kiliendelea pale Mitengo kama alivyonisimulia mimi.”

"Kwa kuwa Msuya alishuhudia kila kitu kilichofanyika pale Mitengo na Grayson akiwepo, kwa hiyo sisi kama makachero tuliona Grayson akisikia, basi mahojiano yetu naye yatakuwa rahisi."

Shahidi huyo alihitimisha Kwa kueleza kuwa katika mahojiano ya mdomo waliyoyafanya na Dk Msuya mbele ya Grayson, alisimulia kama alivyokuwa amemsimulia yeye na walipomuuliza Grayson, alikubali kuwa alivyosimulia Dk Msuya ndivyo walivyofanya.

“Hivyo mimi kama RCO picha iliyoniijia kichwani ni kwamba, haya sasa ni mauaji na kama ni mauaji hakuna mauaji ambayo hayana mwili au mtu aliyeuawa, hivyo nikamtaka Grayson atuonyeshe huyo ambaye wamemuua yuko wapi."

Hata hivyo wakati shahidi huyo anataka kueleza kile Grayson alichosema, kiongozi wa jopo la mawakili wa utetezi, Majura Magafu aliweka pingamizi akisema kwa kuwa Grayson si mshtakiwa wala shahidi, hawezi kutoa maelezo yake kwa sababu hawatapata fursa ya kumhoji kuhusu ukweli wake.

Pingamizi hilo liliibua mvutano wa hoja na upande wa mashtaka na Jaji Kakolaki baada ya kusikiliza hoja za pande zote aliahirisha kesi hiyo Kwa ajili ya kuandika uamuzi wake.

SEHEMU YA PILI

KESI YA POLISI WANAODAIWA KUMUUA MUUZA MADINI: RPC alivyochambua uhusika wa washtakiwa​


Shahidi wa tatu katika kesi ya mauaji ya mfanyabiashara wa madini, Mussa Hamis inayowakabili maofisa Saba wa Polisi mkoani Mtwara; Kamishna Msaidizi wa Polisi (ACP), Yustino Mgonja amehitimisha ushahidi wake huku akichambua jinsi baadhi ya washtakiwa wanavyohusika katika tuhuma hizo.

ACP Mgonja ametoa uchambuzi huo wakati akijibu maswali ya dodoso kutoka kwa mawakili wa utetezi na maswali ya ufafanuzi kutoka kwa mwendesha mashtaka, kuhusiana na maswali hayo ya dodoso, akihitimisha ushahidi wake juzi jioni baada ya kusimama kizimbani kwa siku tatu.

Wakati wa tukio la mauaji hayo ACP Mgonja alikuwa Mkuu wa Upelelezi Mkoa (RCO) wa Mtwara na kwa sasa ni Kamanda wa Polisi Mkoa (RPC) wa Kipolisi Ilala jijini Dar es Salaam.

Washtakiwa katika kesi hiyo ni aliyekuwa Mkuu wa Upelelezi wa Wilaya ya Mtwara (OC- CID), Mrakibu wa Polisi (SP), Gilbert Sostenes Kalanje; na aliyekuwa Mkuu wa Kituo Kikuu cha Polisi Mtwara (OCS), Mrakibu Msaidizi wa Polisi (ASP) Charles Maurice Onyango.

Wengine ni aliyekuwa Ofisa Intelijensia ya Jinai Wilaya (DCIO) Mtwara ASP Nicholaus Stanslaus Kisinza; Mkaguzi Msaidizi (A/Insp) Marco Mbuta Chigingozi; Mkaguzi (Insp) John Yesse Msuya, aliyekuwa Mganga Mkuu wa Zahanati ya Polisi Mtwara; A/Insp Shirazi Ally Mkupa na Koplo Salim Juma Mbalu.

Maofisa hao wa Polisi wanakabiliwa na shtaka moja la mauaji wakidaiwa kumuua kwa maksudi Mussa Hamis katika kituo cha Polisi Mitengo Wilaya ya Mtwara, Mkoa wa Mtwara, Januari 5, 2022.

Kesi hiyo ya jinai namba 15 ya mwaka 2023 inasikilizwa na Mahakama Kuu Kanda ya Mtwara, na Jaji Edwin Kakolaki kutoka Mahakama Kuu Kanda ya Dar es Salaam.

Maswali ya dodoso na maswali ya ufafanuzi na jinsi shahidi huyo alivyoyajibu na kufafanua uhusika wa washtakiwa hao yalikuwa kama ifuatavyo.

Wakili Majura Magafu anayewakilisha mshtakiwa wa kwanza, SP Kalanje

Wakili: Wakati Kiula (OCS) anamkabidhi SP Kalanje funguo alimsainisha?

Shahidi: Hakumsainisha.

Wakili: Huyo Paul (Kiula) OCS alikwambia kuna mahali aliweka kumbukumbu kwamba hawa maafisa walifika hapo kituoni?

Shahidi: Hilo hakuniambia.

Wakili: Sasa Gilbert (SP Kalanje) anasema siku hiyo ya tarehe 5 hakufika katika kituo hicho, mbali na ushahidi wako wa maneno una ushahidi wa document (nyaraka) kuthibitisha hayo kwamba walikwenda hapo?

Shahidi: Ushahidi wa document (nyaraka) sina lakini aliyesema yupo na atakuja kueleza.

Wakili: Ulisema baada ya wewe pia kwenda na timu yako mkaona mbavu tano mliziacha palepale kwa nini hamkuzichukua?

Shahidi: Hatukuzichukua kwa sababu tulitaka zije zichukukuliwe na wataalamu maana sisi si wataalamu.

Wakili: Kwani ninyi mngezichukua zingebadilika?

Wakili: Na kwa sababu ya kosa mlilolifanya ndio maana kesho yake mkakuta zimeongezeka na kuwa nane na hamjui nyingine zilitoka wapi.

Shahidi: Hatukufanya kosa maana tuliowaacha askari wa ulinzi.

Wakili: Kuna kanuni ya kikachero kwamba trust nobody (usimwamini mtu yeyote).

Shahidi: Mimi niliwaamini.

Wakili: Sasa mimi nakwambia hamkupata mbavu pale.

Shahidi: Wewe unasema.

Wakili: Hivyo vitu mlivyovipata eneo la tukio (mifupa eneo ulikodaiwa kutupwa mwili wa Mussa) mliviingiza kwenye (kitabu cha kumbukumbu za vielelezo) regista?

Shahidi: Ndio.

Wakili: Hiyo regista umeileta hapa mahakamani?

Shahidi: Hapana.

Wakili: Sasa regista hujaleta, unataka mahakama ikuamini kwa mdomo tu kuwa mlipata masalia ya mbavu pale?

Shahidi: Ndio.

Wakili: Ulipokea ripoti ngapi (za uchunguzi wa vielelezo vile, masalia) kutoka kwa Mkemia?

Shahidi: Moja tu.

Wakili: Siyo mbili?

Shahidi: Mbili za kwako.

Wakili: Moja tu, sasa akija hapa mwingine akasema mbili sisi tutashangaa. Unajua kwa nini nakuuliza hivyo? Ni kutokana na yaliyomo kwenye haya makabrasha.

Shahidi: Sikiliza ushahidi wangu, usinilishe matangopori mzee.

Majibu ya ufafanuzi

Wakili wa Serikali: Wakili wa mshtakiwa wa kwanza, Majura Magafu, alikuuliza kama kabla ya kumpeleka Grayson kwenye jopo uliwahi kumhoji kuhusu hizi tuhuma, ukajibu kuwa ni kweli mara ya mwanzo alikataa ulimaanisha nini?

Shahidi: Nilimaanisha kuwa mwanzoni tulipomhoji alikana akijua kuwa ukweli hautajulikana, lakini baada ya kumuunganisha na Dk Msuya alikiri akatupeleka eneo la tukio na akaandika maelezo ya nyongeza.

Maswali ya wakili Fredrick Odada anayemtetea mshtakiwa wa Pili, ASP Onyango

Wakili: Shahidi, ni kweli au si kweli kwamba licha ya kumtaja mshtakiwa wa pili mara nyingi lakini katika ushahidi wako kwa mujibu wa taarifa uliyopewa na Dk Msuya hakuna sehemu yoyote inayomuonesha kuhusu kifo cha Mussa Hamis Hamis?

Shahidi: Siyo kweli, amehusika maeneo mengi.

Alipoulizwa na Wakili wa Serikali, Marungu kufafanua jibu la swali hilo ACP Mgonja alieleza:

Shahidi: Nilisema amehusika maeneo mengi nikiwa na maana kwanza alijua harakati zote na akabariki mtuhumiwa yule awekwe mahabusu kwa RB ambayo si ya kweli.

Aliruhusu askari kutoka nje ya mkoa huku akijua hana mamlaka hayo maana hakuwa na kibali cha RPC, huku akijua kosa lililoko katika movement order hiyo kuwatoa nje ya mkoa ni tofauti na kwenye RB.

RB iliandikwa kuvunja nyumba na kuiba yeye akaandika wizi wa pikipiki kuliwafanya watu wa Nachingwea (maafisa wa Polisi) waamini kuwa safari ile ni halali.

Alishiriki kumtoa Mussa Hamis kwa Dk Msuya mpaka Mitengo,

Alitajwa pia na Koplo Jagali kuonekana usiku wa Januari 5, 2022 (siku ya mauaji) wakati walipokwenda kumchukua huyo waliyesema alikuwa mgonjwa wao. Kwa hiyo kusema kuwa ushiriki wake haupo si sahihi.

Maswali ya wakili Emmanuel Msengezi anayemtetea mshtakiwa wa tatu, Kisinza

Wakili: Kuna tukio gani ambalo watu wa Intelijensia na ofisi yako walikuwa wanafuatilia Newala kati ya Januari 2 mpaka 5, 2022?

Shahidi: Sikumbuki.

Wakili: Nilitaka nikukimbushe tukio la ajali lililokuwa limetokea Kijiji cha Migumbe Wilaya ya Newala na dereva akakimbia.

Shahidi: Nimesema sikumbuki.

Wakili: Hukumbuki au umechagua kutokukumbuka?

Wakili: Eneo la Newala liko Mtwara?

Shahidi: Ndio.

Wakili: Kwa hiyo hukumbuki ajali iliyotokea eneo lako ikaua watu 14?

Shahidi: Sikumbuki mbona unaniuliza vitu ambavyo sijavisema na sivikumbuki?

Wakili: Hata hukumbuki ofisa aliyekuwa analishughulikia?

Shahidi: Sikumbuki.

Wakili: Kwa hiyo nikikwambia tarehe hiyo Nico alikuwa busy kumtafuta dereva wa lori hilo lililosababisha ajali na akakimbia utakuwa hukumbuki?

Shahidi: Wewe wasema, mimi sikumbuki.

Wakili: Katika maelezo yako au ya ofisa yeyote uliyemteua kupeleleza shauri hili hakuna mahali ambako unamtaja Nico kuwepo kituo cha Polisi Mitengo au Mtwara siku ya Januari 5, 2022 kuhusiana na tukio la mauaji ya Mussa, ni kweli?

Shahidi: Yumo alikuwa na information (taarifa) na katika tukio la kukamatwa na kupekuliwa na kuchukuliwa kwa Sh2.3 milioni za Mussa Hamis Oktoba 20, 2021,

Alikuwa anajua mahojiano na uwekwaji mahabusu kwa Mussa kwa MTR /RB/ 1330/2021 ya uwongo ya kuvunja nyumba usiku na kuiba.

Alikuwa anajua movement (mizunguko) ya vijana wake kutoka Mtwara kwenda Nachingwea bila vibali. Alikuwa anajua kilichopatikana kule yaani kilichochukuliwa kule maana vijana hao walimwambia.

Mheshimiwa Jaji kwa kujua huko matukio yote hayo anajua pia tukio lililoendelea pale Mitengo (mauaji).

Wakili: Nje na maneno yako kuna ushahidi wowote uliouleta hapa mahakamani kwa kuonesha Nico alikuwa anajua ya kilichojiri Januari 5, 2022?

Shahidi: Hakuna ushahidi.

Majibu ya maswali ya ufafanuzi

Wakili wa Serikali: Uliulizwa na Wakili wa mshtakiwa wa tatu kuhusu upekuzi uliofanyika Sadina Hotel ukasema hukuwa na shida nao na shida kwako ilikuwa ni common intention, ulimaanisha nini?

Shahidi: Nilimaanisha kwamba kitendo cha kufika kituoni na kumuweka yule kijana (Mussa) mahabusu kwa kosa lingine hakukuwa halali maana walikuwa wanamtuhumu wizi wa pikipiki na ndilo walikuwa wanatembea nalo mpaka mwisho.

Wakili: Pia Ulipoulizwa na Wakili huyo kuhusu taratibu za kukabidhiana mali zilizokamatwa Ruponda hazikufanyika ukajibu kuwa hazikufanyika maana hao walikuwa na yao, ulimaanisha nini?

Shahidi: Nilimaanisha kuwa askari hao Marco Mbuta ni askari wa siku nyingi anajua taratibu za kukabidhi vielelezo kwa yeye na wenzake kutokufuata taratibu na kukubali kwenda kwenye kikao na OC-CID, na kukubali kuviacha mezani kama alivyosema OC- CID, hawakuwa na lengo zuri.

Maswali ya Wakili Alex Msalenge, anayemtetea mshtakiwa wa nne, Marco Mbuta Chikingizo

Wakili: Shahidi haina ubishi baada ya malalamiko ya Mussa kutoka NPS (Ofisi ya Taifa ya Mashtaka kuchukuliwa pesa na vitu vyake na Polisi, washtakiwa) na baadaye malalamiko ya shahidi wa kwanza wa mashtaka, (mama wa marehemu, Hawa Bakari) bila shaka akili yako kiupelelezi ilitakakujua nani aliyeenda (kumpekua marehemu) Nachingwea?

Shahidi: Ni sahihi.

Wakili: Na haina ubishi taarifa ya nani aliyeenda Nachingwea uliipata kwa (askari wa Nachingwea) Inspector Singano?

Shahidi: Sahihi.

Wakili: Na majina hayo ni Marco (Chikingizo), Shirazi na Koplo Salim?

Shahidi: Ni sahihi.

Wakili: Na haina ubishi uliwaita wote waweze kuhojiwa Januari 8, 2022?

Shahidi: Sahihi

Wakili: Hawakupinga kuwa walikwenda Nachingwea kufanya upekuzi na wakarudi na mali?

Shahidi: Ni sahihi.

Wakili: Haina ubishi Marco alikuonesha kuwa walikwenda kwa movement order (kibaki askari kutoka nje ya mkoa wake) iliyosainiwa na OCS wa kituo cha Mtwara (mshtakiwa wa pili) ASP Onyango?

Shahidi: Ndio, ambaye hana mamlaka hayo.

Wakili: Na haina ubishi walikwambai kuwa vile vitu walivikabidhi kwa viongozi wao SP Kalanje, ASP Onyango na Kisinza?

Shahidi: Ndio.

Wakili: Na kimsingi ushahidi wako hao wakubwa watatu waliodaiwa kukabidhiwa hivyo vitu baada ya wewe kuwahoji walikana kukabidhiwa?

Shahidi: Ni sahihi.

Wakili: Ni sahihi katika ushahidi wako mshtakiwa wa nne alikuongezea kitu kwamba Mussa Hamis (alipofika kituo cha Mitengo alipoitwa kufuata vitu vyake) alipokewa na Grayson Januari 5, 2022 kwa ushahidi wa audio aliyorekodi kwa simu yake?

Shahidi: Ni sahihi.

Wakili: Ni sahihi ulisema Marco baada ya kupata taarifa kwa Singano kwamba kule Nachingwea kuna malalamiko Marco aliongea na bosi wake SP Kalanje lakini majibu aliyoyapata yakampa wasiwasi?

Shahidi: Ndio.

Wakili: Sasa labda kwa kuwa uliongea naye kwa nini alianza kupata wasiwasi mpaka akaanza kurekodi (majadiliano hayo)?

Shahidi: Alisema alianza kupata wasiwasi sababu aliambiwa vile vitu walivyokamata kule Nachingwea aviache pale mezani.

Pili, alimwambia kuwa kule Singano anasema Mussa Hamis anadai vitu vyake lakini yeye Kalanje akamwambia alikupigia simu mwambie aje kwangu ili nimkamate nimpeleke mahakamani.

Wakili: Kwa hiyo utakubaliana na mimi wasiwasi alioupata Marco hawakuwa pamoja na bosi wake?

Shahidi: Mh! walikuwa pamoja kwenye upotevu wa mali.

Wakili: Kwa ushahidi ulioutoa hapa kifo cha Mussa kitokea Januari 5, 2023 ndani ya Wilaya ya Mtwara ni sahihi?

Shahidi: Ni sahihi.

Wakili: Haibishaniwi tarehe hiyo Marco alikuwa katika kituo chake kipya alikohamishiwa Tandahimba?

Shahidi: Sikumbuki.

Majibu ya ufafanuzi wa baadhi ya maswali ya dodoso.

Wakili wa Serikali: Shahidi, uliulizwa na Wakili wa mshtakiwa wa nne, Alex Msalenge kuhusu movement order (kibali cha asakari kutoka nje ya mkoa kikazi) iliyosainiwa na mshtakiwa wa nne (ASP Onyango) kwenda Kijiji cha Ruponda (Newala kumpekua Mussa kwake) ukajibu kuwa ndiyo ambaye hana mamlaka, ulimaanisha nini?

Shahidi: Kwamba movement order ile ilitolewa kwenda nje ya mkoa bila idhini ya Kamanda wa Mkoa ambaye kwa mujibu wa PGO namba 2 ndiye mwenye mamlaka ya kuitoa na bila kibali cha RPC maana yake OCS Onyango anakuwa hana mamlaka ya kuruhuau askari kwenda nje ya mkoa.

Wakili: Pia alikuuliza kwa ushahidi ulioutoa ni mauaji tu na si wa upotevu wa mali (vitu vilivyochukukiwa Ruponda) ukajibu kuwa si kweli, ulimaanisha nini?

Shahidi: Nilikuwa namaanisha kwamba mauaji ya Mussa Hamis yametokea baada ya kudhulumiwa mali zake. Ili asiendelee kufuatilia mali zake ndio ikabidi auawe, hivyo kusema kwamba ushahidi wangu mimi ni wa mauaji tu hapana.

Wakili: Pia wakili alikuuliza kuwa wakati unahamishiwa hapa Mtwara Desemba hukuwahi kuonana na Marco (mshtakiwa wa nne) wala kufanya naye kazi kwa kuwa alikuwa amehamishiwa Tandahimba ukajibu kuwa ni kweli hukuwahi kuonana naye lakini ukasema kuwa Mtwara si ni hapo tu? Ulimaanisha nini?

Shahidi: Nilimaanisha kwamba Marco kufanya kazi Tandahimba hakuwezi kumzuia kuja Mtwara na kufanya ubovu.

Maswali ya Wakili Robert Dadaya wa mshtakiwa wa tano, Dk. Msuya

Wakili: katika uchunguzi wako Msuya hajawahi kufika kijiji cha Majengo Kata ya Hiari (mahali mwili wa marehemu ulikotupwa) aidha mchana au usiku, ni kweli?

Shahidi: Ni kweli

Wakili: Afande Mgonja nilikusikia ukiongea sana common intention (Nia ya pamoja), sasa tuweke mambo sawa, wakati SP Kalanje na wenzake wanamfuata (Dk Msuya) pale (kazini kwake) hakuwa anajua kwamba kuna mpango wa kummaliza mtu, ni sahihi?

Shahidi: Ni sahihi.

Wakili: Nitakuwa sahihi kwamba usiku wa Januari 5, 2022 Dk Msuya hakuwahi kwenda tena katika kituo cha Mitengo?

Shahidi: Ni sahihi.

Wakili: Ulisema wataalamu walichukua funza kwa ajili ya uchunguzi wa sampuli ya sumu ni sahihi?

Shahidi: Ni sahihi.

Wakili: Ripoti ya uchunguzi sumu (kwenye wale funza) uliipata?

Shahidi: Ndio.

Wakili: Ni kweli kwamba ripoti ile inasema kwamba hapakuwa na sumu kwenye ile sampuli ya funza?

Shahidi: Ni kweli.

Wakili: Ni kweli Dk Msuya hakuwa miongoni mwa askari waliomkamata na kuwapekua watuhumiwa katika Hoteli ya Sadina wala kwenye timu ya makachero waliokwenda (nyumbani kwa Mussa) Nachingwea?

Shahidi: Ni kweli, hakwenda.

Baada ya maswali hayo ya kusawazisha upande wa mashtaka ulifunga ushahidi wake kwa shahidi huyo.

Simulizi ya kusisimua

Awali katika ushahidi wake akiongozwa na mwendesha mashtaka, Wakili wa Serikali Mkuu, Pascal Marungu, ACP Mgonja alitoa simulizi ya kusisimua akielezea jinsi mfanyabiashara huyo alivyouawa, akibainisha matukio ya kabla, wakati na baada ya mauaji hayo.

Alibainisha kuwa alipata taarifa na maelezo hayo kwa asakari wa kituo cha Mitengo waliokuwa zamu, na watuhumiwa waliowahoji katika upelelezi wake na timu yake, akiwemo mshtakiwa wa tano, Dk Msuya na Mkaguzi msaidizi Grayson Gatian Mahembe, aliyejinyonga akiwa mahabusu.

Kutokana na maelezo hayo, ACP Mgonja alidai kuwa siku ya tukio, Januari 5, 2022, mshtakiwa wa kwanza, SP Kalanje alimuomba Dk Msuya awasaidie kumuua Mussa kwa kumdunga sindano ya sumu kama alikuwa nayo.

ACP Mgonja alidai kuwa SP Kalanje alimweleza Dk Msuya kuwa huyo ni mtuhumiwa wao wizi wa pikipiki, mikoa ya Dar es Salaam, Mtwara na Nachingwea Lindi, kwa kuwa alikuwa akiwasumbua na alikuwa amekataa kutoa maelezo.

Hata hivyo, Dk Msuya alimshauri badala ya sindano ya sumu ambavyo hajawahi kumdunga mtu tangu alipoajiriwa na kuapa kuwa daktari, ni vema wamdunge sindano ya dawa ya usingizi aliyokuwa nayo kidogo ili akizinduka ataje matukio yote ya wizi aliyokuwa akiyafanya.

Alidai kuwa walikubaliana na ushauri wake na Dk Msuya akamdunga Mussa sindano ya dawa ya usingizi aina ya Ketamine CC (sentimita za ujazo) moja, lakini SP Kalanje alisema kuwa huyo alikuwa anawachelewesha, hivyo akachukua tambala akamziba mdomo na pua.

Hata hivyo, alidai kuwa baadaye kidogo SP Kalanje alimuita Dk Msuya ambaye alikuwa ametoka nje ya chumba walimokuwa akamuuliza kama alikuwa tayari (ameshafariki?) na Dk Msuya akajibu kuwa tayari, wakatoka nje na kufunga mlango wakaondoka, SP Kalanje akiwa na funguo za chumba walimomuacha waliyemuita mtuhumiwa wao (Mussa).

Katika sehemu iliyopita ya ushahidi wake, ACP Mgonja alieza jinsi ambavyo mmoja wa watuhumiwa alivyowapeleka mahali ambako alidai kuwa ndiko walikotupa mwili wa marehemu Mussa.

Alieleza kuwa mahali hapo wakiwa na timu ya wataalamu wa uchunguzi walipata mifupa ya mbavu nane na mifupa miwili ya mguu na suruali kisha akamuita mama wa marehemu, kwa ajili ya kuchukuliwa sampuli kwenda kizifanyia uchunguzi pamoja na mifupa hiyo.

ACP Mgonja aliieleza kuwa Januari 24, mama wa marehemu Mussa, Hawa Bakari alifika ofisini kwake.

Alimueleza kuwa kuna mifupa waliyoipata ambayo wanahisi kuwa ni ya mwanaye Mussa wanayemtafuta na akamuomba achukuliwe sampuli kwa ajili ya vipimo vya vinasaba ili kupata uthibitisho kama ndiye mtoto wake, naye akaridhia kuwa yuko tayari ili ajue ukweli kama mwanaye yuko hai bado au la.

Hivyo ACP Mgonja aliandika barua kwa Ofisi ya Mkemia Mtwara kuomba uchunguzi ufanyike na ulinganifu wa mabaki ya mifupa ya binadamu waliyoyapata eneo la tukio, kisha vielelezo hivyo (mifupa na funza na sampuli ya mate ya mama huyo) vikapelekwa kwa Mkemia kufanyiwa uchunguzi

Februari Mosi 2022, walipata matokeo ya uchunguzi huo ambayo yalieleza kuwa ile mifupa na vinasaba vilivyotolewa kwa mama vimeoana. Hata hivyo vielelezo hivyo vilibaki ofisi ya Mkemia.

ACP Mgonja alimuita mjomba wa marehemu Mussa; Salum Ng'ombo akamjulisha matokeo ya uchunguzi huo kwamba kwa hiyo sasa wanaamini Mussa ameuawa na akamuomba amjulishe mama wa marehemu.

Baada ya hapo walikamilisha upelelezi na Januari 25, 2022 watuhumiwa walifikishwa mahakamani (na kusomewa shtaka linalowakabili).

SEHEMU YA TATU

KESI YA POLISI WANAODAIWA KUMUUA MUUZA MADINI: Shahidi adai mtuhumiwa alitoa sharti kuonyeshwa mwili ulikotupwa

Shahidi wa tatu katika kesi ya mauaji ya mfanyabiashara wa madini, Mussa Hamis inayowakabili maofisa saba wa polisi mkoani Mtwara, ameieleza Mahakama Kuu Kanda ya Mtwara kuwa mmoja wa watuhumiwa alivyokwenda kuonyesha walikoutupa mwili alitoa sharti moja.

Shahidi huyo, Kamishna Msaidizi wa Polisi, Yustino Mgonja amebainisha sharti alilolitoa mtuhumiwa huyo, Mkaguzi Msaidizi wa Polisi, Grayson Mahembe kuwa alichagua timu ya wapelelezi ambao alieleza yuko tayari kwenda kuwaonyesha huku akimkataa yeye na timu yake.

Pia, Mgonja ameeleza timu ya wapelelezi hao aliowakubali walipofika mahali hapo ilikuta mbavu nne tu, lakini baadaye yeye alipokwenda na timu yake na wataalamu baada ya kukagua zaidi walipata mbavu nane na mifupa miwili ya mguu wa kulia.

Mgonja wakati wa mauaji hayo shahidi huyo alikuwa Mkuu Mkuu wa Upelelezi Mkoa wa Mtwara (RCO), kwa sasa ni Kamanda wa Polisi Mkoa wa Ilala, jijini Dar es Salaam.

Ametoa maelezo hayo leo Novemba 17, 2023 katika mwendelezo wa ushahidi wake wenye simulizi ya jinsi mfanyabiashara huyo alivyouawa, akibainisha matukio ya kabla, wakati na baada ya mauaji hayo, kwa maelezo aliyoyapata kwa mashuhuda na watuhumiwa katika upelelezi na timu yake.

Washtakiwa katika kesi hiyo ya namba 15/ 2023 ni pamoja na aliyekuwa Mkuu wa Upelelezi wa Wilaya ya Mtwara (OC- CID), Mrakibu wa Polisi (SP), Gilbert Sostenes Kalanje, Mkuu wa Kituo cha Polisi Mtwara, (OCS), Mrakibu Msaidizi wa Polisi (ASP) Charles Maurice Onyango.

Wengine ni aliyekuwa Ofisa Intelijensia ya Jinai Mkoa wa Mtwara, Nicholaus Stanslaus Kisinza, A/Insp Marco Mbuta, Mkaguzi wa Polisi (Insp) John Yesse Msuya, aliyekuwa mganga mkuu wa Zahanati ya Polisi Mtwara, A/Insp Shirazi Ally Mkupa na Koplo Salim Juma Mbalu.

Maofisa hao wa polisi wanakabiliwa na shtaka la mauaji wakidaiwa kumuua Mussa kwa kumchoma sindano ya usingizi na kisha kumziba mdomo na pua kwa tambala katika kituo cha Polisi Mitengo Wilaya ya Mtwara, Mkoa wa Mtwara, Januari 5, 2022.

Kesi ya maofisa hao saba wa polisi mkoani Mtwara inasikilizwa na Jaji Edwin Kakolaki kutoka Mahakama Kuu Kanda ya Dar es Salaam.

Katika mwendelezo wa ushahidi wake akiongozwa na mwendesha mashtaka, Wakili wa Serikali Mkuu, Pascal Marungu, shahidi huyo alidai kuwa Mussa aliuawa na SP Kalanje kwa kumziba kwa tambala mdomoni na puani.

Kwa mujibu wa ACP Mgonja, SP Kalanje alichukua hatua hiyo muda mfupi baada ya Dk. Msuya (mshtakiwa wa tano) kumdunga sindano ya usingizi mfanyabiashara huyo.

Sindano hiyo alidai aliipendekeza Dk Msuya ambayo alidai ingemfanya aeleze matukio yote ya uhalifu aliyokuwa ameshayafanya baada ya kuzinduka, badala ya kumdunga sindano ya sumu aliyokuwa ameipendekeza SP Kalanje kwa madai wanataka wampoteze kabisa.

Shahidi huyo aliieleza Mahakama kuwa alipata taarifa za tukio hilo baada ya kuwahoji baadhi ya askari waliokuwa zamu katika kituo cha Polisi Mitengo, Dk Msuya mwenyewe na A/Insp Grayson (marehemu) ambao walisimulia tukio hilo.

Wakati wa tukio hilo, ACP Mgonja alikuwa RCO Mkoa wa Mtwara na kiongozi wa timu ya wapelelezi watano wa polis na timu ya askari wa kikosi maalumu ya kukabiliana na ugaidi kilichoongozwa na SP Simba aliyoiomba iungane nao kuanzia wakati wa kumhoji mtuhumiwa Grayson.

Kwa mujibu wa ACP Mgonja walikubaliana kuwa kabla ya kumhoji Grayson, walimleta Dk Msuya asimulie mbele yake Grayson nini kiliendelea pale Mitengo kama alivyokuwa amemsimulia yeye.

Dk Msuya alisimulia hivyo na walipomuuliza Grayson akakubali kuwa alivyosimulia Dk Msuya ndivyo walivyofanya.

Hivyo, alimtaka Grayson awaoneshe huyo waliomuua yuko wapi, ndipo akatoa sharti kwamba yuko tayari kuwaonyesha wale askari wa kikosi kazi chini ya SP Simba na si wapelelezi wa timu ya awali aliyoiongoza yeye ACP Mgonja, sharti ambalo walikubaliana nalo.

Hata hivyo, ACP Mgonja alimwelekeza SP Simba kwamba endapo wataonyesha na kuthibitisha, basi awajulishe nao waende kushuhudia na kuthibitisha na wakaondoka kwenda eneo la tukio siku hiyohiyo Januari 21, 2022 yapata muda wa saa tano usiku.

Akiwa katika kituo cha Polisi Mtwara na timu yake baada ya dakika kama 50, ACP Mgonja alipokea simu kutoka kwa SP Simba akimjulisha kuwa wamefika eneo la tukio ni jirani na kiwanda cha Sementi cha Dangote kuna mtu mkubwa mahali panaitwa Majengo Kata ya Hiari.

ACP Mgonja alitaka kujua wameona nini na SP Simba akajibu kuwa kwanza wamekutana harufu kali sana kama ya uozo na kwamba baada ya kumulika na tochi eneo hilo waliona mabaki kama ya mbavu nne.

Hivyo, ACP Mgonja na timu yake nao walikwenda eneo la tukio kwa mwongozo wa SP Simba, ambako pia alisikia harufu ya uozo lakini baada ya kuhesabu zile mbavu alipata tano.

Alielekeza eneo lile tuzungushie utepe na pia akaelekeza askari wawili wenye bunduki Ditektivu Koplo (DC) Denis na Ditektivu Sajenti (DS) Diamond wakilinda mpaka asubuhi watakapokwenda na wataalamu kuchunguza mabaki hayo.

Pia alielekeza Insp Abubakar aandike maelezo ya nyongeza ya Grayson kwenye maelezo yake ya awali katika jalada la uchunguzi.

Pia ACP Mgonja alimuelekeza DC Denis kwamba baada ya Grayson kumaliza kuandika maelezo yake amuweke mahabusu naye akafanya hivyo pale Mitengo chumba cha pekee yake na akawajulisha tena RPC na DCI

Januari 22, 2022, ACP Mgonja aliamka na jukumu la kutafuta timu ya wataalamu kwa ajili ya kwenda eneo la tukio walikoona zile mbavu na kufanya uchunguzi kuzibaini kama ni za binadamu na kuthibitisha walichokuwa wanakitafuta yaani mwili wa Mussa.

Hivyo alimtafuta daktari wa Hospitali ya Mkoa, Mkemia, kutoka ofisi ya Mkemia Mkoa wa Mtwara, mwakilishi wa Ofisi ya Mwendesha mashtaka Mkoa wa Mtwara, Mwenyekiti wa Kijiji cha Majengo na Mtendaji wa kata ya Hiari.

Pia aliandaa askari wa kitengo cha wanne wa kikosi cha uchunguzi wa sayansi jinai wakiongozwa na Inspekta Apobokile.

Taarifa za kujinyonga Grayson

Wakati akiendelea kukusanya timu ya wataalamu hao, muda wa saa nne asubuhi alipokea simu ya Mkuu wa Polisi Wilaya ya Mtwara (OCD), Mrakibu wa Polisi Mwandamizi (SSP) Nguvila akimjulisha kuwa kwenye kituo cha Mitengo A/Insp. Grayson amejinyonga akiwa mahabusu.

Yeye, Kamanda wa Polisi mkoa wa Mtwara (RPC) na timu yake ya wapelelezi na ya Forensic na walipofika kituoni Mitengo walishuhudia kweli Grayson amejinyonga akiwa amening'inia kwenye kamba aliyokuwa ameifunga kwenye dirisha.

RPC alielekeza lifunguliwe jalada la kifo cha mashaka cha Grayson na likafunguliwa, kisha akamuelekeza naendelee kukusanya timu ya wataalamu kwenda eneo tukio walikoonyshwa kuwa ndiko ulikotupwa mwili wa Mussa.

Baada ya kuwapata wataalamu wote walielekea eneo la tukio hilo ambako walifika saa 5:30 wakawakuta mwenyekiti wa Koji cha Majengo na Mtendaji wa kata ya Hiari wakiwa wameshafika pamoja na askari waliowaacha kulilinda eneo hilo ambalo pia lilikuwa kama walivyoliacha.

Baada ya kuwapatia maelezo ya kile walichokuwa wamekiona usiku, wataamu hao daktari, Mkemia na watu wa kitengo cha uchunguzi wa sayansi jinai waliingia kwenye lile eneo wakusanye vitu walivyokuwa wanavipata.

Wao waliona mbavu nyingine tatu pamoja na zile tano za awali zikawa tano. Pia sehamu nyingine waliona mifupa miwili ya miguu na sehemu nyingine pia kulikuwa na kama uozo na kulikuwa na funza wakaweka alama na kupiga picha.

Daktari alieleza kwa ufupi palepale kwamba kwa utaalamu wake zile mbavu ni mbavu za binadamu.

Baada ya kupiga picha na kuchora ramani, mkemia na Apobokile walikusanya vile vielelezo. Pale walichukua mbavu nane na mifupa miwili ambayo daktaria alisema ni ya mguu wa kulia, suruali na funza.

ACP na timu yake walifanya kazi yao ya kikachero kwa maana ya kuandika maelezo ya mashuhuda na wote waliokuwepo pale.

Mabaki hayo yalichukukiwa na Mkemia na Apobokile wakavipeleka ofisini kwa ACP Mgonja, ili aandike barua kuvikabidhi kwa mkemia kwa mujibu wa utaratibu, baada ya kuviwekea lakiri.

"Kwa unyeti wake kwamba ni viungo vya binadamu ambavyo vikitoa majibu vitaunganisha kesi yetu, niliona bora vikae ofisini kwangu, hivyo nilikuwa navitunza mimi kwenye kasiki", alieleza ACP Mgonja na kuongeza:

"Vitu hivyo vilikaa ofisini kwangu toka Jumamosi ya Januari 22 mpaka Jumanne Januari 24, 2022. Siku hiyohiyo (Januari 22) mwili wa Grayson ulisafirishwa kwenda kwao (Tabata- Segerea, Dar es Salaam kwa mazishi)

Januari 23 ACP Mgonja alimpigia mjomba wa marehemu, Salum Ng'ombo amtafute mama wa marehemu, Hawa Bakari ili aende azungumze naye akikubali aende kuchukuliwa sampuli (mpanguso wa mate) akafanyiwe vipimo vya vinasaba (DNA).

Pia aliwajulisha RPC na DCI kuwa kwa ushahidi ambao wameukusanya, unawahusisha askari wao, hivyo akaomba kibali cha kuwakamata na kuwahusisha mauaji hayo.

Januari 24 idhini ikatoka kufungua jalada la mauaji ambapo walifungua jalada la mauaji kumbukumbu namba MTR/IR/154/2022 na akaelekezwa watuhumiwa wote wahojjwe kuhusiana na mauaji ya mfanyabiashara huyo.

SEHEMU YA NNE
Inspekta asimulia walivyofukua fedha ardhini nyumbani kwa marehemu

Shahidi wa nne katika kesi ya mauaji ya mfanyabiashara wa madini Mussa Hamis inayowakabili maofisa saba wa Polisi mkoani Mtwara, ameieleza mahakama namna baadhi ya washtakiwa walivyofika kituo Cha Polisi Nachingwea na kisha kijijini kwao marehemu Musa na yaliyojiri huko.

Shahidi huyo, askari kutoka Kituo cha Polisi Nachingwea, PF20449, Mkaguzi (Inspekta) wa Polisi, Jacob Bernard Singano, ameeleza yaliyojiri kabla, wakati na baada ya kufika na kufanya ukaguzi nyumbani kwao Mussa. Ametoa ushahidi huo akiwa anaongozwa na mwendesha mashtaka, Wakili wa Serikali Mkuu, Martenus Marandu.

Pamoja na mambo mengine, ameieleza mahakama jinsi alivyoambatana na baadhi ya washtakiwa hao kwenda kufanya ukaguzi nyumbani kwa kina Mussa katika Kijiji chaa Ruponda wilayani Nachingwea Mkoa wa Lindi, ambako walipata pesa za Kitanzania na za kigeni (Dola za Marekani) zilizokuwa zimefukiwa ardhini.

Washtakiwa katika kesi hiyo ni aliyekuwa Mkuu wa Upelelezi wa Wilaya ya Mtwara (OC- CID), Mrakibu wa Polisi (SP), Gilbert Sostenes Kalanje; aliyekuwa Mkuu wa Kituo Kikuu cha Polisi Mtwara, (OCS), Mrakibu Msaidizi wa Polisi (ASP) Charles Maurice Onyango.

Wengine ni aliyekuwa Ofisa Intelijensia ya Jinai Wilaya (DCIO) Mtwara ASP Nicholaus Stanslaus Kisinza; Mkaguzi Msaidizi (A/Insp) Marco Mbuta Chigingozi; Mkaguzi John Yesse Msuya, aliyekuwa mganga mkuu wa Zahanati ya Polisi Mtwara; A/Insp. Shirazi Ally Mkupa na Koplo Salim Juma Mbalu.

Maofisa hao wanakabiliwa na shtaka moja la mauaji wakidaiwa kumuua kwa makusudi Mussa Hamis katika kituo cha Polisi Mitengo Wilaya ya Mtwara, Mkoa wa Mtwara, Januari 5, 2022.

Kwa mujibu wa ushahidi wa upande wa mashtaka, washtakiwa hao wanadaiwa kumuua Mussa kwa kumziba mdomo na pua kwa kutumia tambala, baada ya kumchoma sindano ya dawa ya usingizi.

Kulingana na wa ushahidi huó, walifika uamuzi huo ili asiendelee kuwadai pesa na mali zake walizokuwa wamezichukua walipokwenda kumfanyia upekuzi nyumbani kwao, wakimtuhumu kuziiba na pia wizi wa pikipiki.

Kesi hiyo ya jinai namba 15 ya mwaka 2023 inasikilizwa na Mahakama Kuu Kanda ya Mtwara, na Jaji Edwin Kakolaki kutoka Mahakama Kuu Kanda ya Dar es Salaam.



Simulizi ya kamili ya shahidi

Kwa mujibu wa maelezo yake, Oktoba 21, 2021 mchana akiwa kazini kwake kituo cha Polisi Nachingwea, alifika A/Insp Mbuta akiongozana na A/Insp Shirazi (mshtakiwa wa sita) na Koplo Salim (mshtakiwa wa saba) kutoka Mtwara.

Mbuta alieleza kuwa ndani ya gari yao waliambatana na mtuhumiwa aitwaye Mussa Hamis.

Alimweleza Singano kuwa wamefika hapo kwanza kuripoti na pia kupata msaada wa kwenda kwa mtuhumiwa kuwaonesha fedha alizokuwa ameziiba Dar es Salaam.

Mbuta aliionesha movement order (hati ya kibali cha kutoka nje ya mkoa kikazi) iliyokuwa na tuhuma za wizi wa pikipiki Mtwara, kumbukumbu ya uhalifu MTR/IR/1330/2021.

Singano alimuuliza Mbuta namna walivyoweza kumkamata mtuhumiwa, naye akajibu kuwa walikuwa wawili lakini wakati ukamataji mwingine aitwaye Said alikimbia.

Singano alimpeleka Mbuta kwa Mkuu wa Polisi Wilaya (OCD), SP Kavalambi, Mbuta akamueleza OCD huyo kuwa katika mahojiano naye mtuhumiwa inaonesha sehemu ya fedha hizo alizoziiba ziko kwao Ruponda.

Pia Mbuta alimueleza OCD kuwa mtuhumiwa alikuwa tayari ameshazitumia kwa kununua vitu mbalimbali na kwamba wakati wa ukamataji, mwenzake Said alikimbia na hivyo wana wasiwasi kuwa Said anaweza kwenda kuzihamisha hizo fedha.

OCD Kavalambi baada ya kuangalia ile hati alimweleza Mbuta kuwa wana changamoto ya usafiri kwani magari yao yote mawili yalikuwa nje ya kituo yakifanya kazi nyingine.

Mbuta alisema kuwa wataitumia gari yao walivyokuwa nayo, na akamuuliza Singano umbali wa kufika Ruponda, Singano akamjibu kuwa ni kilometa 15 - 20 na Mbuta akasema kuwa gari yake inaweza kumudu.

OCD Kavalambi alimuamuru Singano aambatane nao ili kusimamia upekuzi huo na Singano akaomba askari wengine wawili wa kuambatana nao kwa usalama zaidi na OCD akakubaliana naye. Akawachukua Koplo Mussa na PC Daniel ambao walichukua silaha.

Kisha Singano alikwenda kuangalia gari waliokuwa nalo kina Mbuta aina ya Vitz rangi nyeusi alipochungulia ndani akawaona wale askari wawili wenzake na Mbuta, Shirazy na Salim na mtu mwingine, hivyo akaona ilikuwa imejaa.

Hivyo alimuuliza Mbuta kama kuna ulazima wa watu wote hao kwenda huko na Mbuta akajibu kuwa ulazima upo na wakakubalina wengine wapande pikipiki.

Kisha Singano aliwaambia askari wake Koplo Mussa na PC Daniel waingie kwenye ile gari na wale askari wawili waliotoka Mtwara (Shirazi na Salim wachukue pikipiki, nao wakafanya hivyo wakaondoka.

Singano aliwatafuta kwenye simu viongozi wa Ruponda wa kata na kijiji akampata Mtendaji wa kata aitwaye Editha Ibrahim akamtaka asiondoke ili ashirikiano nao na kushuhudia kazi ya upekuzi.

Walipofika nyumbani kwao Mussa, kijijini Ruponda, Kitongoji cha Magomeni, Mbuta alimtaarifu baba yake Mussa, Bakari Said M Mnali kuwa kijana wake wamemkamata Mtwara ana tuhuma za wizi wa pesa.

Pia Mbuta alimweleza baba yake Mussa kuwa hivyo wamefika naye hapo ili awaonesha sehemu ya pesa hizo na baadhi ya vitu alivyokwishanunua na kwamba pia ana tuhuma za wizi wa pikipiki.

Baba yake Mussa alijibu kuwa hao ni vijana wana mambo mengi, na yeye hawezi kujua lakini kwa kuwa wanaye basi angewaonyesha.

Waliingia ndani Mussa akawaongoza hadi chumba cha tatu na cha mwisho mkono wa kushoto, ambako aliwaonesha baadhi ya vitu hivyo alivyokuwa ameshavinunua yaani solar panel, inventor pamoja na betri.

Pia Mussa akaelekeza wachimbe chini na Koplo Salim akachimba lakini hakuona kitu na hata Mussa mwenyewe alipochimba hakuona kitu, akasema hizo pesa aliziweka hapo.

Alimuuliza baba yake kuwa nani kazichukua lakini baba yake akajibu kwamba jana yake aliipigwa simu na Saidi akamuelekeza mahali hapo azichukue kwa sababu mlikuwa mmekamatwa huko na Polisi na Polisi wanakwenda.

Hivyo baba yake Mussa alieleza kuwa alizitoa na kwenda kuzificha, huku akiwataka waende awaoneshe alikokuwa amezificha.

Wote walitoka nje na baba yake Mussa aliwaonesha na Singano akamtaka afukue mwenyewe naye akafanya hivyo hadi akafika mfuniko wa rangi ya bluu uliokuwa umefunika kopo jeupe la kuhifadhiwa dawa aina ya panadol.

Singano alilitoa kopo hilo akalifungua na ndani kulikuwa na pesa za Kitanzania noti za 26 za Sh5,000 zenye thamani ya Sh130,000.

Pia kulikuwa na Dola za Marekani, noti 119 za Dola 100 thamani yake ikiwa Dola 11,900; noti 32 za Dola 50 yaani jumla Dola 1,600.

Vilevile kulikuwa na noti moja ya Dola 20; noti tatu za Dola 10 sawa na Dola 30 na noti moja ya Dola tano sawa na Dola Tano na noti tatu za Dola Moja sawa na Dola Tatu.

Hivyo jumla ya pesa za kigeni zilikuwa Dola za Marekani 13,558, ambazo Mbuta aliziweka kwenye hati ya ukamataji mali pamoja na solar panel, inventor na betri na wahusika wote wakasaini, kisha wakaondoka na vitu hivyo.

Singano alitoa maelekezo wale mashahidi walioshuhudia waandikwe maelezo akiwemo Editha, Ibrahim, ambaye ni mtendaji Kata ya Ruponda.

Kisha Mussa Mussa akaelekeza kwa Said ambaye alikuwa ameeleza kuwa anaweza kuchukua baadhi ya pesa, lakini walipokwenda kwake hapakuwa na mtu na nyumba ilikuwa imefungwa.

Lakini pembeni kulikuwa na watoto wakicheza akiwemo mmoja ambaye walielezwa kuwa ni mdogo wake Said.

Singano alipomuuliza mahali alikokuwa Said akajibu kuwa hayupo na kwamba aliondoka siku nne zilizopita akiambatana na Mussa. Hivyo Koplo Salim aliandika maelezo ya mtoto huyo aitwaye Omari.

Waliondoka kwenda kituoni na Mussa pamoja na baba yake.

Wakiwa njiani kuelekea kituo cha Polisi Nachingwea walikutana na mama mmoja akiendesha baiskeli na mzee Said Bakari Mnali akamwambia dereva, Mbuta asimamishe gari, kwan huyo alikuwa ndiye mama yake Saidi.

Mbuta alisimamisha gari, Singano akashuka na kumuita yule mama naye akasimama akajitambulisha kwake na kisha akamuuliza kama ana mtoto anaitwa Saidi naye akakubali.

Mama huyo aitwaye Somoe Omari Kalunde alisema kuwa Said aliondoka nyumbani siku nne au tano lakini alimpa maagizo akanunue vifaa vya ujenzi na kwamba ndio alikuwa anatoka mjini kununua.

Singano alimtaka waende naye kituo cha Polisi kutoa maelezo zaidi naye yule mama akakubali na kuacha baiskeli yake nyumba jirani kwa ndugu yake wakaondoka naye hadi kituo cha Polisi Nachingwea.

Alipohojiwa kituoni mama yake Said alieleza kuwa Said alikuwa ameondoka na Mussa na kwamba wakati anaondoka alimpatia pesa kama Sh2 milioni za kununua vifaa vya ujenzi na kwamba mbali na vifaa vile alivyokuwa amenunua, bado kuna pesa nyingine amezihifadhi kwenye begi.

Hivyo Singano alimtaarifu OCD na kwamba wanataka kurudi kuchukua hizo pesa kwa mama huyo na OCD akaelekeza wachukue gari la Polisi kwa kuwa lilisharudi na pia amchukue askari mmoja wa kike.

Hivyo Singano alimchukua WP Amaria na Koplo Heri, dereva, pamoja na timu yote ya awali wakarudi tena huko Ruponda.

Mara hii Singano alimpigia Mtendaji hakumpata, lakini walipofika nyumbani kwao Mussa walimpata kiongozi wa Serikali ya Mtaa aitwaye Said Juwani Said wakaenda naye pamoja na mdogo wake Mussa Hamis aitwaye Maulid Hamis.

Yule mama aliwakabidhi pesa noti 210 za Sh5,000 kila moja sawa na Sh1.05 milioni, Mbuta akaijaza kwenye kumbukumbu, wakasaini Mbuta, Juwani na Somoe kisha askari wale wakaondoka kurudi kituoni wakafika Oktoba 22 Alfajiri.

Kina Mbuta waliondoka na Mussa peke yake wakawaacha baba yake Mussa na Mama yake Saidi, kwa sababu gari ilikuwa ndogo na Singano akawasisitiza warudi haraka kuwachukua, lakini hawakurudi kuwachukua.

Chanzo: Mwananchi
 
Hatari sana, mwenendo wa kesi kufuatia pingamizi la upande wa washitakiwa kupitia wakili wao ...


1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA
AT MTWARA CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO. 15 OF 2022
(Original PI No 1 of 2022 in the Resident Magistrate’s Court of Mtwara at Mtwara)

THE REPUBLIC

VERSUS

GILBERT SOSTENES KALANJE........................... 1st ACCUSED
CHARLES MAURICE ONYANGO.. 2ND ACCUSED
NICHOLAUS STANSLAUS KISINZA...................3RD ACCUSED
MARCO MBUTA CHIGINGOZI...............4TH ACCUSED
JOHN YESSE MSUYA............................5TH ACCUSED
SHIRAZI ALLY MKUPA..........................6TH ACCUSED
SALIM JUMA MBALU............................7TH ACCUSED

RULING Date of last Order: 13/11/2023
Date of Ruling: 13/11/2023
E.E. KAKOLAKI, J.

Before the prosecution could parade their witnesses in Court, the lead counsel Mr. Maternus Marandu, Principal State Attorney moved the Court
with a prayer to record the filed Notice of intention to bring in additional evidence (documentary exhibit) of a witness for the prosecution which according to him was filed on 31/10/2023 and served to all accused persons.


Counsel and lead counsel for and on behalf of all other defence counsel. His
objection mainly based on three grounds, one that, all accused persons are not aware of its existence since it has never been served to either of the
accused person or their advocates. Secondly that, this Court is functus officio to entertain this prayer as similar prayer was previously made by the prosecution on 09/08/2023 when this matter came for preliminary hearing but refused on the ground that, the statement of witness whose the notice sought to add for tendering of caution statement was read during committal
procedure but skipped to read the said cautioned statement hence it was improper for the prosecution to rely on the provisions of section 289(1) and
(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, [Cap. 20 R.E 2022] (the CPA).

Page 2
According to him since the ruling of this Court of 09/08/2023 in relation to the Notice filed under section 289(1) of the CPA was refused despite of another
unsuccessful attempt during preliminary hearing to list caution statement of Insp. John Jesse Msuya as part of the prosecution documents intended to be relied upon during trial, this Court cannot entertain Notice of similar
nature arising from section 289(1) and (4) of the CPA for being functus officio. Lastly he argued, the purported notice filed on 31/10/2023 has failed

demanding for Notice to be given within reasonable time and that must have names and address of the witness intending to make additional evidence.
And further that, the prosecution has not stated the provision enabling them to refile similar application to the formerly rejected one. He thus prayed the
Court to uphold the objection and reject the prayer by the prosecution.

In rebuttal Mr. Nassir, Senior State Attorney urged the Court to dismiss the objections for want of merit. To start with the last argument he responded
that, the provisions of section 289(1) and (2) of the CPA were complied with as names and address of the witness intending to tender the said exhibit are
provided and further that, the Notice was served to the accused person through the prison officer one S/Sgt. Mohamed who signed their copy. The said copy was provided to the Court for reference. As to what should be
contained in the Notice relying on the case of Masamba Musiba Musiba Masai Msamba Vs. R, Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 2019 (CAT- unreported) he said the requirement is that, the Notice must state the name and address of the intended witness together with the substance of
her evidence, the particulars which are provided in the present notice. As to whether mentioning of the caution statement in the statement of witness whose Notice of additional evidence was rejected by the court on 09/08/2023

Page 3

suffices to allow the prosecution proceed tendering the said exhibit Mr. Nassir responded that, the case of DPP Vs. Sharif Mohamed @ Athuman and 6 Others, Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2016 (CAT-unreported) provides
an answer. In that case he argued the Court of Appeal said it is not enough for a witness to merely allude to a document in his witness statement, but
rather the contents of that document must also be made known to the accused person(s). He therefore contended the Notice is properly before the
Court for complying with the law, hence defence’s objection is bound to fail.

On the second limb he retorted that, it is not true as submitted by Mr. Magafu that this Court is functus officio. According to him the issue on the merit of
the Notice was not deliberated and decided on by this Court as the same was struck out on the ground that, since the statement of recorder of the caution statement was read during committal and not the caution statement itself, hence the purported Notice could not have introduced it in as it was meant to add additional witness and not a document, hence ended up being struck out for being improperly titled. He argued that, as per the case of Cyprian Mamboleo Hizza Vs. Eva Kioso and Another, Civil Application No. 3 of 2010 (CAT-unreported) when the application is not dismissed the applicant can go back to the same court and start the process afresh. To him

Page 4

therefore the struck out application can be refiled and so submitted. It was his further submission that, even by assuming that the prayer for recording of the Notice was dismissed still the prosecution could have filed the present
Notice the two being different in contents as the rejected one sought to add additional witness of ASP Esau James Ikamaza while the present one seeks
to add the exhibit (caution statement) of Insp. John Jesse Msuya. He finally prayed the filed Notice to be recorded as filed as prayed.

In rejoinder Mr. Magafu maintained his submission in chief while insisting that, neither accused nor their advocates were served with the Notice after
it was filed in Court on 31/10/2023. He argued that, assuming for the sake
of argument the said Notice was served to the accused which fact is denied still it would not have been considered to be reasonable as provided by the
law since it was assumingly served on 10/11/2023. As to what Notice is reasonable he argued, section 289(3) of the CPA provides the answer as the
circumstances as to when the party seeking to add evidence became acquainted with nature of evidence sought to be added or witness to be called must be taken into account. And that where the nature of evidence is
discovered in the course of trial then the Notice is dispensed with. On how did the defence know the contents of the Notice which according to Mr

Page 5

Nassir were challenged Mr. Magafu recanted to have made such submission on missing particulars in the Notice accusing Mr. Nassir to have misquoted him as when submitting on that area he was referring to what the law
provides of a competent Notice and not its contents since the copy was never served to the accused nor to their advocates. In another exhilarating argument Mr. Magafu contended that this being a criminal matter the struck
out Notice cannot be refiled as such relief is provided only in civil matters hence the Case of Cyprian Mamboleo Hizza (supra) relied on by the
prosecution to impress upon the court that the struck out matter can be refiled is inapplicable to the circumstances of this case. As to other cases he also submitted the same are distinguishable from the facts of this case. Otherwise he reiterated his submission that this Court is functus officio hence
the objections raised be sustained.

I have taken time to chew out both fighting submission by the parties, consult the law and peruse the Notice at dispute in a bid to answer the issue as to whether this Court should record the Notice or not as prayed. To start with is the second limb on issue as to whether this Court is functus officio to entertain the Notice allegedly formerly decided on in its ruling of 09/08/2023.

It is a settled principle of law that, a court becomes functus officio over a

Page 6

matter if that court has already heard and made final determination over the
matter concerned or made some orders finally disposing of the case. See the case of Yusuf Ali Yusuf @ Shehe@ Mpemba & 5 Others Vs. The Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2019 (unreported) and Kamundi Vs.
R (1973) EA 540.

Applying the principle in the above cited cases to the facts of this matter and having glanced at the ruling of this Court dated on 09/08/2023 on whether
Notice of Additional witness filed in Court seeking to introduce admission of addition exhibit a caution statement in which Mr. Magafu for defence had
objected its recording on the ground that, the Notice does not cater for additional evidence /exhibit but rather a witness whose statement explaining
substance of his evidence was not read during committal proceedings, I do not subscribe to Mr. Magafu’s proposition that this Court is functus officio. I
so do as the court when determining of the preliminary objection noted that the said witness statement which Mr. Magafu claimed not to have been read during committal proceedings was in fact read and further noted that, the
Notice itself concerned intention to add additional witness and not caution statement which the prosecution was aiming at, hence the court ruled out
that the purported Notice for additional of caution statement did not qualify

Page 7


to form part of the filed Notice for additional witness before the same was struck out. The said Notice in my opinion was struck out for being incompetent before the Court as legally the incompetent matter is abortive, meaning it is incapable of being heard or adjourned since there is no any matter before the Court. The above legal stance was given legal backing by the Court of Appeal in the case of Yahya Hamis Vs. Hamida Haji Idd and
2 Others, Civil Appeal No. 225 of 2018 (CAT-unreported) where the Court had this to say:’’...the remedy of a matter which is incompetent before the
Court is to be struck out. The reason for striking it out is that
such matter is abortive or rather is incapable of being heard or
even to be adjourned. In other words, it carries the implication
that there is no matter at all before the Court.’’
As the Notice subject of the ruling of 09/08/2023 was struck out on account of being incompetent it is my finding that there was no Notice at all before
the Court warranting entertainment of the prayer by the prosecution to have
it record. The first notice having been struck out, I hold there was no any conclusive decision made by this Court on whether the Notice should berecorded or not as prayed by the prosecution to render it functus officio.
Assuming for the sake of argument there was a decision was made on the

Page 8


said Notice, still I would hold this Court not functus officio as the Notice concerned an intention to add a witness ASP Esau James Ikama only and not for addition of caution statement of Insp. John Jesse Msuya (exhibit).
This limb of objection therefore fails.

Next for determination is whether the struck out criminal matter can be refiled, in which Mr. Magafu submits such remedy applies to civil matters
only and not criminal matter. With due respect to the learned counsel I do not subscribe to his proposition on two grounds. One, he cited no any authority to the Court in support of his stance. Secondly, it is settled law as correctly submitted by Mr. Nassir when relying on the case of Cyprian Mamboleo Hizza (supra) that, the applicant whose matter is not dismissed
but rather struck out can go back to the same court and start afresh. As to whether such remedy is applicable to criminal matter, I have no hesitation
in making a finding that it does.

The Court of Appeal in the case of Juma Nhandi Vs. R, Criminal Appeal No. 289 of 2012 (CAT-unreported) where the Court had an occasion of dealing with the issue as to whether it was
proper for the first appellate court to dismiss the appeal which was incompetent, the Court ruled that the same ought to have been struck out and the appellant advised to file an application for extension of time so as

Page 9


to refile the competent appeal. In so doing the Apex Court of the land had this to say:’’After perusal of the order dismissing the appeal to the High Court and also the "summary rejection order" of the same court, we are in agreement with the learned State Attorney that the learned Judge should have struck out the incompetent appeal that was filed out of time and advise the appellant to seek an extension of time before filing a competent appeal to the High Court.’’

Back to the present matter since the first Notice of the intention to add witness was struck out, it is the findings of the Court that, the onlyprosecution’s remedy was to refile the Notice afresh.
Lastly is whether the filed Notice is incompliance with the provisions of section 289(1) and (2) of the CPA. In order to appreciate gist of the
contending arguments by the parties it is imperative that the said provision of section 289(1) and (2) of the CPA be reproduced:289.-(1) A witness whose statement or substance of evidence was not read at committal proceedings shall not be called by the prosecution at the trial unless the prosecution has given a reasonable notice in writing to the accused person or his advocate of the intention to call such witness.

Page 10


(2) The notice shall state the name and address of the witness and the substance of the evidence which he intends to give.

From the above exposition of the law, parties are at one concerning the requirement of the provisions of the law in that, no witness whose statement
or substance evidence was not read at committal proceedings shall be called by the prosecution to testify unless a reasonable notice is given in writing to the accused person or his advocate of the intention to call such witness. As to what constitute a Notice subsection (2) of section 289 of the Act is
categorical that it should mention name and address of the person intended to be called to give evidence. The object of the said section 289(1) and (2)
of CPA as obtaining in the case of Said Shabani Malikita Vs. R, Criminal Appeal No. 523 of 2020 (CAT-unreported) is to make aware the accused person of evidence likely to be used by the prosecution against him or during the trial.

It is undisputed fact under the same case that, an omission to list and read any exhibit during the committal proceedings which is sought to be
tendered during the trial in the High Court is curable by the application of section 289(1) and (4) of the CPA.

In this matter in which the prosecution’s prayer is for recording the filed
Notice, the complaint by the defence is that neither the accused persons no

Page 11


their advocates were served with the same in compliance with the provision of section 289(1) of the CPA and that the particulars of name and address of the party seeking to tender the exhibit is not provided for something which is contested by Mr. Nassir when submitted that, all requirements were complied with. It is not in dispute that, the said notice was filed on
31/10/2023 and purportedly served to the accused on 10/11/2023 vide B. 1903 S/Sgt. Mohamed of Lilungu prison. This Court upon passing a eye to
the copy of the said Notice allegedly filed on 10/11/2023 is in agreement with Mr. Magafu that, there is nothing showing that the same was served to accused persons through the prison authority for want of prison receiving stamp. Mere name and signature of the alleged prison officer without proof of the office in which he is coming from in my opinion is insufficient evidence
to prove that service done to the accused persons. I therefore find the Notice under dispute was not served to the accused person. As to whether the same bears names and address of the witness intending to tender the caution statement subject of the Notice at dispute, I find the law as provided under section 289(2) of the CPA was fully complied with by the prosecution, hence dismiss the complaint by Mr. Majura on that aspect as names of ASP. Essau
James Ikamaza and his address which is under care of the RCO for Mtwara

Page 12


Region were provided. Further to that, substance of the exhibit sought to be added is supplied in the notice as Cautioned Statement of PF 19906 Insp.
John Yesse Msuya recorded by ASP Essau James Ikamaza as witness. Save for omission of service of the said notice other requirement of the law were
complied with by the prosecution and I so find.

Now the last issue for determination is whether an omission or failure by the
prosecution to serve the accused person the filed Notice within reasonable time affects their prayer for recording it to form part of this Court’s
proceedings. In my humble view such omission or failure does not taint the Notice itself for two good reasons. One, the requirement of the law is for
the party seeking to tender additional evidence or exhibit to file a Notice, the object of which is to make sure that accused person(s) are made aware of
the prosecution’s intention to rely or tender such evidence or exhibit in Court as it was stated in Said Shabani Malikita (supra), the requirement which
in my considered view was complied with by the prosecution when the Notice
was filed in Court on 31/10/2023. Second, the issue of reasonability of service of the Notice is prematurely raised since the same can be raised,
tested and determined if need be when the additional witness is called to testify or tender the sought to be tendered exhibit in court

Page 13


All said and done, I find the objections raised by the defence devoid of merit and overrule them. It his hereby ordered that the Notice of additional exhibit
(cautioned statement) of PF 19906 Insp. John Yesse Msuya filed on
31/10/2023 by the prosecution is hereby marked recorded as prayed.

It is further ordered that, the same be served to the accused person or their advocates within reasonable time and before presentation of additional
evidence or exhibit in Court.

It is so ordered.


Dated at Mtwara this 13th November, 2023.
E. E. KAKOLAKI
JUDGE
13/11/2023.

The Ruling has been delivered at Dar es Salaam today 13th day of November, 2023 in the presence of both parties and Mr. Asha Mboga, Court clerk.

Right of Appeal explained.

Page 14

Source : Republic versus Gilbert Sostenes Kalanje & 6 others (Criminal Session Case no.15 of 2023) [2023] TZHC 22631 (13 November 2023)

 
In short kuwa askari kwa nchi kama Tanzania ni sawa na mtu aliyelaaniwa.

Babu yangu mzaa mama wakati watoto wake wanachagua kazi za kufanya aliwaonya asithubutu hata mmoja kujisemea anataka kuwa askari,yeye aliutafsiri uaskari kama kazi ya dhulma na ukiangalia matukio wanayofanya hawa mabwana huwezi kuwatenganisha hata nukta na laana.
 
Katika ushahidi wake akiongozwa na mwendesha mashtaka, Wakili wa Serikali Mkuu, Pascal Marungu aliieleza mahakama kuwa Mussa aliuawa na SP Kalanje Kwa kumziba kwa tambala mdomoni na puani, muda mfupi baada ya Dk Msuya (mshtakiwa wa Tano) kumdunga sindano ya usingizi.
Ili wapige pesa za kutusua maisha mjini.

Then waje kutwambia sisi hatuwazi Nje ya Box.🤣🤣
 
Hatari sana


1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA
AT MTWARA CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO. 15 OF 2022
(Original PI No 1 of 2022 in the Resident Magistrate’s Court of Mtwara at Mtwara)

THE REPUBLIC

VERSUS

GILBERT SOSTENES KALANJE........................... 1st ACCUSED
CHARLES MAURICE ONYANGO.. 2ND ACCUSED
NICHOLAUS STANSLAUS KISINZA...................3RD ACCUSED
MARCO MBUTA CHIGINGOZI...............4TH ACCUSED
JOHN YESSE MSUYA............................5TH ACCUSED
SHIRAZI ALLY MKUPA..........................6TH ACCUSED
SALIM JUMA MBALU............................7TH ACCUSED

RULING Date of last Order: 13/11/2023
Date of Ruling: 13/11/2023
E.E. KAKOLAKI, J.

Before the prosecution could parade their witnesses in Court, the lead counsel Mr. Maternus Marandu, Principal State Attorney moved the Court
with a prayer to record the filed Notice of intention to bring in additional evidence (documentary exhibit) of a witness for the prosecution which according to him was filed on 31/10/2023 and served to all accused persons.


Counsel and lead counsel for and on behalf of all other defence counsel. His
objection mainly based on three grounds, one that, all accused persons are
not aware of its existence since it has never been served to either of the
accused person or their advocates. Secondly that, this Court is functus
officio to entertain this prayer as similar prayer was previously made by the
prosecution on 09/08/2023 when this matter came for preliminary hearing
but refused on the ground that, the statement of witness whose the notice
sought to add for tendering of caution statement was read during committal
procedure but skipped to read the said cautioned statement hence it was
improper for the prosecution to rely on the provisions of section 289(1) and
(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, [Cap. 20 R.E 2022] (the CPA). According
to him since the ruling of this Court of 09/08/2023 in relation to the Notice
filed under section 289(1) of the CPA was refused despite of another
unsuccessful attempt during preliminary hearing to list caution statement of
Insp. John Jesse Msuya as part of the prosecution documents intended to
be relied upon during trial, this Court cannot entertain Notice of similar
nature arising from section 289(1) and (4) of the CPA for being functus
officio. Lastly he argued, the purported notice filed on 31/10/2023 has failed


Source : Republic versus Gilbert Sostenes Kalanje & 6 others (Criminal Session Case no.15 of 2023) [2023] TZHC 22631 (13 November 2023)
Extremely dangerous event.
Frankly speaking from the bottom of my heart, Jeshi la Polisi Tz na TISS ni Makundi ya Kigaidi hapa nchini . Habari hii inatisha sana kupita kiasi, na hiyo ndio namna yao ya utendaji kazi. Completely taasisi hizi zimepoteza kabisa uhalali wa kuwa Majeshi ya Serikali ya nchi, ni makundi ya kigaidi.
Kwa hali hii namshauri Rais wa nchi hii akae na wataalamu huru wa masuala ya Sheria/Katiba pamoja na wataalamu huru wa masuala ya Ulinzi na Usalama ili wamshauri namna nzuri zaidi ya kulivunja Jeshi la Polisi na TISS, kuwapokonya silaha zote walizokabidhiwa pamoja na Kutangaza Hali ya Hatari kwa muda Fulani huku ukiandaliwa utaratibu mwingine mpya ulio mzuri zaidi na bora wa kuunda upya taasisi hizi.
 
Kamanda wa Polisi Mkoa wa Kipolisi Ilala, Kanda Maalumu ya Dar es Salaam, Kamishna Msaidizi wa Polisi (ACP), Yustino John Mgonja ameieleza Mahakama Kuu Kanda ya Mtwara namna mfanyabiashara wa madini, Mussa Hamis Hamis, alivyouawa.

Pia, amewataja washtakiwa waliokuwepo eneo la tukio na yule anayedaiwa kutekeleza mauaji hayo ya mfanyabiashara huyo aliyekuwa mkazi wa Nachingwea mkoani Lindi.

ACP Mgonja alitoa maelezo hayo jana wakati akitoa ushahidi katika kesi hiyo ya mauaji inayowakabili maofisa saba wa Jeshi la Polisi mkoani Mtwara. Yeye ni shahidi wa tatu wa upande wa mashtaka kati ya mashahidi 72 wanaotarajiwa kuitwa na upande wa mashtaka katika kesi hiyo.

Washtakiwa katika kesi hiyo ya jinai namba 15 ya mwaka 2023 ni pamoja na aliyekuwa Mkuu wa Upelelezi wa Wilaya ya Mtwara, Gilbert Sostenes Kalanje na Mkuu wa Kituo cha Polisi Mtwara, Charles Onyango.

Wengine ni aliyekuwa Ofisa Intelijensia ya Jinai Mkoa wa Mtwara, Nicholaus Kisinza, Marco Mbuta, Mkaguzi wa Polisi, John Msuya, aliyekuwa mganga mkuu wa Zahanati ya Polisi Mtwara, Shirazi Mkupa na Koplo Salim Mbalu.

Maofisa hao wa Polisi wanakabiliwa na shtaka moja la mauaji wakidaiwa kumuua kwa makusudi Mussa waliyemchoma sindano ya sumu katika kituo cha Polisi Mitengo Wilaya ya Mtwara, Mkoa wa Mtwara, Januari 5, 2022.

Hata hivyo, wakati polisi hao wakiwa mahabusu kabla ya kupandishwa kizimbani, mtuhumiwa mwenzao, Grayson Mahembe alidaiwa kujinyonga hadi kufa Januari 22, 2022 akiwa mahabusu.

Kesi hiyo inasikilizwa na Jaji Edwin Kakolaki kutoka Mahakama Kuu Kanda ya Dar es Salaam.

Katika ushahidi wake akiongozwa na mwendesha mashtaka, Wakili wa Serikali Mkuu, Pascal Marungu aliieleza mahakama kuwa Mussa aliuawa na SP Kalanje Kwa kumziba kwa tambala mdomoni na puani, muda mfupi baada ya Dk Msuya (mshtakiwa wa Tano) kumdunga sindano ya usingizi.

Shahidi huyo aliieleza Mahakama kuwa alipata taarifa za tukio hilo baada ya kuwahoji baadhi ya askari waliokuwa zamu katika kituo cha Polisi Mitengo, pamoja na Dk Msuya mwenyewe na ofisa wa polisi, Grayson (marehemu kwa sasa) ambao walisimulia tukio hilo.

Kwa mujibu wa shahidi huyo, siku ya tukio Januari 5, 2022, mshtakiwa wa kwanza, SP Kalanje alimpigia simu Dk Msuya akamtaka waonane na Dk Msuya ambaye al8ikaribisha ofisini kwake katika zahanati ya Polisi na wakazungumza.

Alidai kuwa SP Kalanje alimueleza Dk Msuya kuwa wana mtuhumiwa wao wa wizi wa pikipiki ambaye amekuwa akifanya matukio ya wizi huo maeneo mbali katika mikoa ya Mtwara, Lindi na Dar es Salaam na amekuwa akiwasumbua hivyo wanataka wammalize.

Hivyo alidai kuwa SP Kalanje alimuuliza Dk Msuya kama anaweza kufanya namna ya kupata sindao ya sumu ili wamdunge, lakini Dk Msuya alimjibu kuwa tangu aajiriwe na kuapa kuwa daktari hajawahi kumdunga mtu sindano ya sumu.

Shahidi huyo amedai kuwa badala yake. Dk Msuya alimshauri SP Kalanje wamdunge sindano ya usingi , akizinduka ataanza kueleza matukio yote ya wizi aliyoyafanya, ushauri ambao Kalanje alikubaliana nao.

Kwa mujibu wa shahidi huyo, licha ya SP Kalanje kutaka waende kutekeleza mpango huo wakati huohuo, lakini Dk Msuya alimueleza kuwa wakati huo bado alikuwa na wagonjwa wengine akiwahudumua na akashauri wafanye baadaye.

Saa 8:30 mchana, Kalanje alifika ofisini kwa Dk Msuya kwa ajili ya kutekeleza mpango huo kama walivyokuwa wamekubaliana, hivyo alimuuliza kama alikuwa tayari akamjibu kuwa alikuwa tayari.

Lakini Dk Msuya alimuuliza SP Kalanje mahali alikokuwa huyo mtuhumiwa wao, akamjibu kuwa alikuwa katika kituo cha Polisi Mitengo.

Kwa mujibu wa shahidi huyo, Dk Msuya alisema yeye anaelewa kituo cha Mitengo kina wahalifu sugu hivyo akajua na huyo amehifadhiwa kwa wahalifu sugu, akakubali akaingia kwenye gari na akakaa kiti cha mbele huku gari likiendeshwa na SP Kalanje.

Wakati gari inaondoka pale zahanati, Dk Msuya alihisi kama viti vya nyuma vina watu.

Hivyo aligeuka kutazama akawatambua watu wawili, ambao ni ASP Onyango na A/Insp Grayson waliokuwa wamekaa viti vya pembeni kulia na kushoto na katikati kulikuwa na mtu mwingine ambaye hakuweza kumtambua.

Waliendelea na safari hadi kituo cha Polisi Mitengo na SP Kalanje alishuka akaenda kuzungumza na mkuu wa kituo hicho, Paulo Kiula.

Dk Msuya na askari wale wawili pamoja na yule mtu ambaye hakumtambua nao walishuka wakamfuata SP Kalanje na mkuu wa kituo walipokuwa wanaelekea ndani ya jengo la kituo hicho.

Dk Msuya alimuomba OCS Kiula amuonyeshe Kalanje ofisi moja ambayo aliingia Kalanje, Onyango, Grayson na yule kijana na yeye akabaki nje.

Lakini baada ya dakika tatu hivi, naye alingia ndani ya hiyo ofisi na alimkuta yule kijana amevuliwa shati yuko kifua wazi na mikono yake ikiwa imefungwa kwa kamba kwa nyuma akiwa amelala kwenye sakafu huku akilia.

SP Kalanje alimwambia Dk Msuya amdunge sindano ya usingizi mkono wa kulia yule kijana.

Na baadaye kidogo, Dk Msuya anasema alimsikia Kalanje akisema huyo anawachelewesha, akachukua tambala akamziba yule kijana pua na mdomo.

Anasema baada ya Dk Msuya kuona vile aliamua kutoka nje akawaacha Karanje na wale wenzake na yule kijana akiwa amelala chini.

Lakini baada ya muda mfupi, Kalanje alimuita Dk Msuya akamuuliza, "tayari?" huku akimuonyesha yule kijana pale chini.

Dk Msuya alimuangalia kama hapumui lakini hakumpima ila alielewa lile swali la SP Kalanje kwamba lilikuwa linamaanisha kama amekufa na yeye alijibu kuwa tayari.

Hivyo wote walitoka mle chumbani na kumuacha yule kijana akiwa amelala pale chini.

SP Kalanje alikwenda kwa OCS akachukua kufuli likiwa na funguo akafunga mlango kisha wakaondoka wote akiwa na huo ufunguo, wakapanda gari na kuondoka.

Kamanda huyo wa polisi ambaye ni shahidi, aliieleza Mahakama kuwa baada ya maelezo hayo ya mdomo kutoka kwa Dk Msuya, alielekeza yaandikwe maelezo kama alivyosimulia na maelezo yake yawekwe kwenye jalada la uchunguzi.

“Wakati huo tulimchukulia Dk Msuya kama mtoa taarifa,” alidai Kamanda Mgonja.

Alidai wakati yote hayo yakifanyika, alijiuliza hayo mauaji ni ya huyo kijana Mussa ambaye ndugu zake walikuwa wanamtafuta au kuna mwingine?

"Hivyo nikaagiza atafutwe mjomba wa Mussa Hamis anayeitwa Salum Mombo aje ofini kwangu, alikuja nikamtaka anitafutie picha za Mussa kusudi ili niangalie yule mtu ambaye askari wanasema walimuona akiingia pale Mitengo ndiyo huyu kijana Mussa Hamis au ni mwingine,” alieleza.

Shahidi huyo alieleza kuwa mjomba huyo akiwa ofini kwake alipiga simu Nachingwea kwa baba wa kufikia wa Mussa akamtaka atafute picha zake azitume kwenye gari.

"Kesho yake Januari 22, 2022 zililetwa picha nikazitazama nikamkabidhi ASP Esau ili waendelee na utaratibu wa upelelezi,” alieleza ACP Mgonja.

Alidai kulikuwa na mauaji Januari 21,2022 niliagiza apatikane Grayson ambaye alikuwa mahabusu Tandahimba, kwanza kati ya watu wote waliotajwa yeye alikuwa ametajwa maeneo mengi.

Alieleza kuwa baada ya Grayson kuletwa aliongeza timu ya wapelelezi akiwajumuisha askari watano wa timu ya Task Force waliokuwa wanashughulikia magaidi wakingozwa na SP Simba, hivyo ikawa timu ya wapelelezi 10 akiwemo yeye mwenyewe.

"Tulifikiri kwa pamoja tukakubaliana tumlete Dk Msuya ili asimulie mbele ya Grayson nini kiliendelea pale Mitengo kama alivyonisimulia mimi.”

"Kwa kuwa Msuya alishuhudia kila kitu kilichofanyika pale Mitengo na Grayson akiwepo, kwa hiyo sisi kama makachero tuliona Grayson akisikia, basi mahojiano yetu naye yatakuwa rahisi."

Shahidi huyo alihitimisha Kwa kueleza kuwa katika mahojiano ya mdomo waliyoyafanya na Dk Msuya mbele ya Grayson, alisimulia kama alivyokuwa amemsimulia yeye na walipomuuliza Grayson, alikubali kuwa alivyosimulia Dk Msuya ndivyo walivyofanya.

“Hivyo mimi kama RCO picha iliyoniijia kichwani ni kwamba, haya sasa ni mauaji na kama ni mauaji hakuna mauaji ambayo hayana mwili au mtu aliyeuawa, hivyo nikamtaka Grayson atuonyeshe huyo ambaye wamemuua yuko wapi."

Hata hivyo wakati shahidi huyo anataka kueleza kile Grayson alichosema, kiongozi wa jopo la mawakili wa utetezi, Majura Magafu aliweka pingamizi akisema kwa kuwa Grayson si mshtakiwa wala shahidi, hawezi kutoa maelezo yake kwa sababu hawatapata fursa ya kumhoji kuhusu ukweli wake.

Pingamizi hilo liliibua mvutano wa hoja na upande wa mashtaka na Jaji Kakolaki baada ya kusikiliza hoja za pande zote aliahirisha kesi hiyo Kwa ajili ya kuandika uamuzi wake.
Huyu Tajiri Mussa Hamisi Hamisi atakuw amtu mzito na mtu wa chama.

Sio rahisi kesi yake kusimama hivi. Kama tulivyozoea.

Vinginevyo tunawapongeza Jeshi la Polisi na Serikaki kusimamia haki.
 
Habari hii inatisha sana kupita kiasi, na hiyo ndio namna yao ya utendaji kazi.

Sana ikizingatiwa baadhi ya polisi waovu wakitumia nafasi zao kufunika jinai zao ni hatari kwa haki za wananchi walio nje ya mfumo wa haki jinai.

Raia wanaweza kusingiziwa chochote kwa kuwa taratibu za kiPolisi zilizoandikwa ktk kijitabu chao cha muongozo wa jinsi ya kufanya kazi zao kutofuatwa kwa makusudi kabisa.

Mfano wa polisi kutozingatia hatua zote zilizoelezwa ndani ya GPO! (PGO(Police General Order) ya kuwa mtuhumiwa akikamatwa lazima mashahidi wawepo na kutiwa ktk kumbukumbu , pia mtuhumiwa akienda au kuingizwa ndani ya kituo cha polisi lazima atiwe katika register ya kituo cha polisi na pia akitolewa kupelekwa kwa ajili ya ushahidi au kuhamishwa kituo lazima irekodiwe. Kwa mfano huu mmoja, mtu mtuhumiwa anaweza kupotezwa na askari polisi waovu na isijulikane kwa urahisi amepotelea wapi kwa kuwa amekamatwa bila kufuata taratibu za GPO za kipolisi .
 
Hatari sana


1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA
AT MTWARA CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO. 15 OF 2022
(Original PI No 1 of 2022 in the Resident Magistrate’s Court of Mtwara at Mtwara)

THE REPUBLIC

VERSUS

GILBERT SOSTENES KALANJE........................... 1st ACCUSED
CHARLES MAURICE ONYANGO.. 2ND ACCUSED
NICHOLAUS STANSLAUS KISINZA...................3RD ACCUSED
MARCO MBUTA CHIGINGOZI...............4TH ACCUSED
JOHN YESSE MSUYA............................5TH ACCUSED
SHIRAZI ALLY MKUPA..........................6TH ACCUSED
SALIM JUMA MBALU............................7TH ACCUSED

RULING Date of last Order: 13/11/2023
Date of Ruling: 13/11/2023
E.E. KAKOLAKI, J.

Before the prosecution could parade their witnesses in Court, the lead counsel Mr. Maternus Marandu, Principal State Attorney moved the Court
with a prayer to record the filed Notice of intention to bring in additional evidence (documentary exhibit) of a witness for the prosecution which according to him was filed on 31/10/2023 and served to all accused persons.


Counsel and lead counsel for and on behalf of all other defence counsel. His
objection mainly based on three grounds, one that, all accused persons are not aware of its existence since it has never been served to either of the
accused person or their advocates. Secondly that, this Court is functus officio to entertain this prayer as similar prayer was previously made by the prosecution on 09/08/2023 when this matter came for preliminary hearing but refused on the ground that, the statement of witness whose the notice sought to add for tendering of caution statement was read during committal
procedure but skipped to read the said cautioned statement hence it was improper for the prosecution to rely on the provisions of section 289(1) and
(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, [Cap. 20 R.E 2022] (the CPA).

Page 2
According to him since the ruling of this Court of 09/08/2023 in relation to the Notice filed under section 289(1) of the CPA was refused despite of another
unsuccessful attempt during preliminary hearing to list caution statement of Insp. John Jesse Msuya as part of the prosecution documents intended to be relied upon during trial, this Court cannot entertain Notice of similar
nature arising from section 289(1) and (4) of the CPA for being functus officio. Lastly he argued, the purported notice filed on 31/10/2023 has failed

demanding for Notice to be given within reasonable time and that must have names and address of the witness intending to make additional evidence.
And further that, the prosecution has not stated the provision enabling them to refile similar application to the formerly rejected one. He thus prayed the
Court to uphold the objection and reject the prayer by the prosecution.

In rebuttal Mr. Nassir, Senior State Attorney urged the Court to dismiss the objections for want of merit. To start with the last argument he responded
that, the provisions of section 289(1) and (2) of the CPA were complied with as names and address of the witness intending to tender the said exhibit are
provided and further that, the Notice was served to the accused person through the prison officer one S/Sgt. Mohamed who signed their copy. The said copy was provided to the Court for reference. As to what should be
contained in the Notice relying on the case of Masamba Musiba Musiba Masai Msamba Vs. R, Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 2019 (CAT- unreported) he said the requirement is that, the Notice must state the name and address of the intended witness together with the substance of
her evidence, the particulars which are provided in the present notice. As to whether mentioning of the caution statement in the statement of witness whose Notice of additional evidence was rejected by the court on 09/08/2023

Page 3

suffices to allow the prosecution proceed tendering the said exhibit Mr. Nassir responded that, the case of DPP Vs. Sharif Mohamed @ Athuman and 6 Others, Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2016 (CAT-unreported) provides
an answer. In that case he argued the Court of Appeal said it is not enough for a witness to merely allude to a document in his witness statement, but
rather the contents of that document must also be made known to the accused person(s). He therefore contended the Notice is properly before the
Court for complying with the law, hence defence’s objection is bound to fail.

On the second limb he retorted that, it is not true as submitted by Mr. Magafu that this Court is functus officio. According to him the issue on the merit of
the Notice was not deliberated and decided on by this Court as the same was struck out on the ground that, since the statement of recorder of the caution statement was read during committal and not the caution statement itself, hence the purported Notice could not have introduced it in as it was meant to add additional witness and not a document, hence ended up being struck out for being improperly titled. He argued that, as per the case of Cyprian Mamboleo Hizza Vs. Eva Kioso and Another, Civil Application No. 3 of 2010 (CAT-unreported) when the application is not dismissed the applicant can go back to the same court and start the process afresh. To him

Page 4

therefore the struck out application can be refiled and so submitted. It was his further submission that, even by assuming that the prayer for recording of the Notice was dismissed still the prosecution could have filed the present
Notice the two being different in contents as the rejected one sought to add additional witness of ASP Esau James Ikamaza while the present one seeks
to add the exhibit (caution statement) of Insp. John Jesse Msuya. He finally prayed the filed Notice to be recorded as filed as prayed.

In rejoinder Mr. Magafu maintained his submission in chief while insisting that, neither accused nor their advocates were served with the Notice after
it was filed in Court on 31/10/2023. He argued that, assuming for the sake
of argument the said Notice was served to the accused which fact is denied still it would not have been considered to be reasonable as provided by the
law since it was assumingly served on 10/11/2023. As to what Notice is reasonable he argued, section 289(3) of the CPA provides the answer as the
circumstances as to when the party seeking to add evidence became acquainted with nature of evidence sought to be added or witness to be called must be taken into account. And that where the nature of evidence is
discovered in the course of trial then the Notice is dispensed with. On how did the defence know the contents of the Notice which according to Mr

Page 5

Nassir were challenged Mr. Magafu recanted to have made such submission on missing particulars in the Notice accusing Mr. Nassir to have misquoted him as when submitting on that area he was referring to what the law
provides of a competent Notice and not its contents since the copy was never served to the accused nor to their advocates. In another exhilarating argument Mr. Magafu contended that this being a criminal matter the struck
out Notice cannot be refiled as such relief is provided only in civil matters hence the Case of Cyprian Mamboleo Hizza (supra) relied on by the
prosecution to impress upon the court that the struck out matter can be refiled is inapplicable to the circumstances of this case. As to other cases he also submitted the same are distinguishable from the facts of this case. Otherwise he reiterated his submission that this Court is functus officio hence
the objections raised be sustained.

I have taken time to chew out both fighting submission by the parties, consult the law and peruse the Notice at dispute in a bid to answer the issue as to whether this Court should record the Notice or not as prayed. To start with is the second limb on issue as to whether this Court is functus officio to entertain the Notice allegedly formerly decided on in its ruling of 09/08/2023.

It is a settled principle of law that, a court becomes functus officio over a

Page 6

matter if that court has already heard and made final determination over the
matter concerned or made some orders finally disposing of the case. See the case of Yusuf Ali Yusuf @ Shehe@ Mpemba & 5 Others Vs. The Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2019 (unreported) and Kamundi Vs.
R (1973) EA 540.

Applying the principle in the above cited cases to the facts of this matter and having glanced at the ruling of this Court dated on 09/08/2023 on whether
Notice of Additional witness filed in Court seeking to introduce admission of addition exhibit a caution statement in which Mr. Magafu for defence had
objected its recording on the ground that, the Notice does not cater for additional evidence /exhibit but rather a witness whose statement explaining
substance of his evidence was not read during committal proceedings, I do not subscribe to Mr. Magafu’s proposition that this Court is functus officio. I
so do as the court when determining of the preliminary objection noted that the said witness statement which Mr. Magafu claimed not to have been read during committal proceedings was in fact read and further noted that, the
Notice itself concerned intention to add additional witness and not caution statement which the prosecution was aiming at, hence the court ruled out
that the purported Notice for additional of caution statement did not qualify

Page 7


to form part of the filed Notice for additional witness before the same was struck out. The said Notice in my opinion was struck out for being incompetent before the Court as legally the incompetent matter is abortive, meaning it is incapable of being heard or adjourned since there is no any matter before the Court. The above legal stance was given legal backing by the Court of Appeal in the case of Yahya Hamis Vs. Hamida Haji Idd and
2 Others, Civil Appeal No. 225 of 2018 (CAT-unreported) where the Court had this to say:’’...the remedy of a matter which is incompetent before the
Court is to be struck out. The reason for striking it out is that
such matter is abortive or rather is incapable of being heard or
even to be adjourned. In other words, it carries the implication
that there is no matter at all before the Court.’’
As the Notice subject of the ruling of 09/08/2023 was struck out on account of being incompetent it is my finding that there was no Notice at all before
the Court warranting entertainment of the prayer by the prosecution to have
it record. The first notice having been struck out, I hold there was no any conclusive decision made by this Court on whether the Notice should berecorded or not as prayed by the prosecution to render it functus officio.
Assuming for the sake of argument there was a decision was made on the

Page 8


said Notice, still I would hold this Court not functus officio as the Notice concerned an intention to add a witness ASP Esau James Ikama only and not for addition of caution statement of Insp. John Jesse Msuya (exhibit).
This limb of objection therefore fails.

Next for determination is whether the struck out criminal matter can be refiled, in which Mr. Magafu submits such remedy applies to civil matters
only and not criminal matter. With due respect to the learned counsel I do not subscribe to his proposition on two grounds. One, he cited no any authority to the Court in support of his stance. Secondly, it is settled law as correctly submitted by Mr. Nassir when relying on the case of Cyprian Mamboleo Hizza (supra) that, the applicant whose matter is not dismissed
but rather struck out can go back to the same court and start afresh. As to whether such remedy is applicable to criminal matter, I have no hesitation
in making a finding that it does.

The Court of Appeal in the case of Juma Nhandi Vs. R, Criminal Appeal No. 289 of 2012 (CAT-unreported) where the Court had an occasion of dealing with the issue as to whether it was
proper for the first appellate court to dismiss the appeal which was incompetent, the Court ruled that the same ought to have been struck out and the appellant advised to file an application for extension of time so as

Page 9


to refile the competent appeal. In so doing the Apex Court of the land had this to say:’’After perusal of the order dismissing the appeal to the High Court and also the "summary rejection order" of the same court, we are in agreement with the learned State Attorney that the learned Judge should have struck out the incompetent appeal that was filed out of time and advise the appellant to seek an extension of time before filing a competent appeal to the High Court.’’

Back to the present matter since the first Notice of the intention to add witness was struck out, it is the findings of the Court that, the onlyprosecution’s remedy was to refile the Notice afresh.
Lastly is whether the filed Notice is incompliance with the provisions of section 289(1) and (2) of the CPA. In order to appreciate gist of the
contending arguments by the parties it is imperative that the said provision of section 289(1) and (2) of the CPA be reproduced:289.-(1) A witness whose statement or substance of evidence was not read at committal proceedings shall not be called by the prosecution at the trial unless the prosecution has given a reasonable notice in writing to the accused person or his advocate of the intention to call such witness.

Page 10


(2) The notice shall state the name and address of the witness and the substance of the evidence which he intends to give.

From the above exposition of the law, parties are at one concerning the requirement of the provisions of the law in that, no witness whose statement
or substance evidence was not read at committal proceedings shall be called by the prosecution to testify unless a reasonable notice is given in writing to the accused person or his advocate of the intention to call such witness. As to what constitute a Notice subsection (2) of section 289 of the Act is
categorical that it should mention name and address of the person intended to be called to give evidence. The object of the said section 289(1) and (2)
of CPA as obtaining in the case of Said Shabani Malikita Vs. R, Criminal Appeal No. 523 of 2020 (CAT-unreported) is to make aware the accused person of evidence likely to be used by the prosecution against him or during the trial.

It is undisputed fact under the same case that, an omission to list and read any exhibit during the committal proceedings which is sought to be
tendered during the trial in the High Court is curable by the application of section 289(1) and (4) of the CPA.

In this matter in which the prosecution’s prayer is for recording the filed
Notice, the complaint by the defence is that neither the accused persons no

Page 11


their advocates were served with the same in compliance with the provision of section 289(1) of the CPA and that the particulars of name and address of the party seeking to tender the exhibit is not provided for something which is contested by Mr. Nassir when submitted that, all requirements were complied with. It is not in dispute that, the said notice was filed on
31/10/2023 and purportedly served to the accused on 10/11/2023 vide B. 1903 S/Sgt. Mohamed of Lilungu prison. This Court upon passing a eye to
the copy of the said Notice allegedly filed on 10/11/2023 is in agreement with Mr. Magafu that, there is nothing showing that the same was served to accused persons through the prison authority for want of prison receiving stamp. Mere name and signature of the alleged prison officer without proof of the office in which he is coming from in my opinion is insufficient evidence
to prove that service done to the accused persons. I therefore find the Notice under dispute was not served to the accused person. As to whether the same bears names and address of the witness intending to tender the caution statement subject of the Notice at dispute, I find the law as provided under section 289(2) of the CPA was fully complied with by the prosecution, hence dismiss the complaint by Mr. Majura on that aspect as names of ASP. Essau
James Ikamaza and his address which is under care of the RCO for Mtwara

Page 12


Region were provided. Further to that, substance of the exhibit sought to be added is supplied in the notice as Cautioned Statement of PF 19906 Insp.
John Yesse Msuya recorded by ASP Essau James Ikamaza as witness. Save for omission of service of the said notice other requirement of the law were
complied with by the prosecution and I so find.

Now the last issue for determination is whether an omission or failure by the
prosecution to serve the accused person the filed Notice within reasonable time affects their prayer for recording it to form part of this Court’s
proceedings. In my humble view such omission or failure does not taint the Notice itself for two good reasons. One, the requirement of the law is for
the party seeking to tender additional evidence or exhibit to file a Notice, the object of which is to make sure that accused person(s) are made aware of
the prosecution’s intention to rely or tender such evidence or exhibit in Court as it was stated in Said Shabani Malikita (supra), the requirement which
in my considered view was complied with by the prosecution when the Notice
was filed in Court on 31/10/2023. Second, the issue of reasonability of service of the Notice is prematurely raised since the same can be raised,
tested and determined if need be when the additional witness is called to testify or tender the sought to be tendered exhibit in court

Page 13


All said and done, I find the objections raised by the defence devoid of merit and overrule them. It his hereby ordered that the Notice of additional exhibit
(cautioned statement) of PF 19906 Insp. John Yesse Msuya filed on
31/10/2023 by the prosecution is hereby marked recorded as prayed.

It is further ordered that, the same be served to the accused person or their advocates within reasonable time and before presentation of additional
evidence or exhibit in Court.

It is so ordered.
Dated at Mtwara this 13th November, 2023.
E. E. KAKOLAKI
JUDGE
13/11/2023.

The Ruling has been delivered at Dar es Salaam today 13th day of November, 2023 in the presence of both parties and Mr. Asha Mboga, Court clerk.

Right of Appeal explained.

Page 14

Source : Republic versus Gilbert Sostenes Kalanje & 6 others (Criminal Session Case no.15 of 2023) [2023] TZHC 22631 (13 November 2023)

Anyway...mleta mada hii kitu umetype kwa simu au computer?
Au ni copy and paste?
 
In short kuwa askari kwa nchi kama Tanzania ni sawa na mtu aliyelaaniwa.

Babu yangu mzaa mama wakati watoto wake wanachagua kazi za kufanya aliwaonya asithubutu hata mmoja kujisemea anataka kuwa askari,yeye aliutafsiri uaskari kama kazi ya dhulma na ukiangalia matukio wanayofanya hawa mabwana huwezi kuwatenganisha hata nukta na laana.
Ile taarifa ya mauaji ya yule kijana iliniumiza sana mtu unapambana hustle zako zinajibu shimo linatema wanakuja watu na njaa zao wanakubambikizia kesi wachukue pesa zako wanaona haitoshi wanaamua kufanya ukatili wa mauaji..
 
Kongole kwa media kama JamiiForums pia bila kusahau ikiwamo mfumo wa mahakama kuu www.TANZLii.org wa kuchapisha hukumu zao kwa wakati, kwa njia hii itakuwa inasaidia wachache waovu waliopo katika mfumo wa haki jinai ( criminal justice system) kufahamu wakitaka kukengeuka watakuwa habari kubwa ktk media na hivyo kupunguza matumizi mabaya ya ofisi kunyima haki au kuondoa uhai wa mtu.

Ripoti hizi zikiwekwa wazi kwa umma kuzisoma, kuelewa matobo na kuchambua makosa ya jinai, mwenendo wa uchunguzi, na hukumu katika kila hatua za kesi zitasaidia kuondokana na matumizi mabaya ya ofisi na mfumo wa haki jinai kufanya uovu .
 
Back
Top Bottom