figganigga
JF-Expert Member
- Oct 17, 2010
- 25,492
- 54,895
Freeman Mbowe afungua mashitaka Umoja wa Mataifa kuhusu Haki zake wakati anakamatwa na kuendelea kubakia kizuizini mpaka sasa.
Mashitaka hayo yameshapokelewa na kuingizwa kwenye Mfumo rasmi.
Habari zaidi...
September 16, 2021
Tanzania: UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Petition in the Case of Freeman Mbowe
BACKGROUND
On September 15, 2021, Mr. Oliver Windridge, an international lawyer recruited by the American Bar Association, Center for Human Rights, under its Justice Defenders Program, filed a communication to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on behalf of imprisoned Tanzanian opposition leader Freeman Mbowe.
Mr. Mbowe is the leader of Chama cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo (Party of Democracy and Progress), also known as Chadema. He was arrested in the early morning hours of July 21, 2021, ahead of a planned party meeting on constitutional reform in Tanzania. As detailed in the petition, Mr. Mbowe was arrested without a warrant, driven for 18 hours, over 1000 kilometers, from Mwanza to Dar es Salaam, and held in incommunicado detention for five (5) days. During this time, he was denied access to a lawyer and to his family and not informed of the charges he was facing. On July 26, he appeared before the Kisutu Magistrate Court where he was charged with conspiracy and the provision of funds to commit terrorist acts under Tanzania’s Economic and Organized Crime Control Act and its Prevention of Terrorism Act, respectively. Because he is facing terrorism-related charges, Mr. Mbowe was automatically denied the right to apply for bail pending trial under Section 148(5) of Tanzania’s Criminal Procedure Act. He remains detained as he awaits his trial.
Following Mr. Mbowe’s arrest, several human rights organizations and governments expressed concern that his arrest was a continuation of an ongoing crackdown on opposing voices in Tanzania. Mr. Mbowe’s recent arrest is not the first time that the authorities have detained and prosecuted him in relation to his activities as an opposition leader and vocal critic of the government. Mr. Mbowe has in the past also been the victim of physical attacks, which his party alleges were politically motivated.
The communication argues that Mr. Mbowe’s pre-trial detention is arbitrary under international human rights law for the following reasons: (i) the manner of his arrest and incommunicado detention for five days was a violation of recognized due process rights; (ii) the automatic denial of bail without due regard for the individual circumstances of Mr. Mbowe’s case under Section 148(5), is a violation of the presumption of innocence; and (iii) the timing of the arrest of Mr. Mbowe, the manner of his arrest and Tanzania’s record of repression, strongly points to Mr. Mbowe’s case being politically motivated in violation of Tanzania’s regional and international human rights obligations.
The views expressed herein represent the opinions of the authors. They have not been reviewed or approved by the House of Delegates or the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association and, accordingly, should not be construed as representing the position of the Association or any of its entities.
===
OLIVER WINDRIDGE
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW | INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW
My reference: UNWGAD/Mbowe/Tanzania/2021
UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Via e-mail wgad@ohchr.org
15 September 2021
Dear Sir or Madam
Submission of Complaint Before the UN Working Group of Arbitrary Detention on behalf of Mr. Freeman Mbowe (United Republic of Tanzania)
I write on behalf of Mr. Freeman Mbowe a citizen of the United Republic of Tanzania. Mr. Mbowe is a prominent opposition political leader, currently detained in Tanzania. In this application, it is argued that Mr. Freeman’s current detention is arbitrary as a result of his arrest, detention and prosecution for acts entirely permissible under international human rights law.
In support of this application please find attached:
1. Completed UNWGAD Model Questionnaire (20 pages)
2. Signed consent form (3 pages)
3. Copy of charge sheet (4 pages)
4. Copy of charge sheet of co-defendants (6 pages)
Should I be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me. I would be grateful if you could acknowledge safe receipt of this application at your earliest convenience.
Yours sincerely
Oliver Windridge
International Counsel for Mr. Mbowe
oliver.windridge@gmail.com @oliverwindridge oliverwindridge
=====
United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Chairman/Rapporteur: Ms. Elina Steinerte (Latvia), Vice-Chairperson on Communications: Dr. Miriam
Estrada-Castillo (Ecuador) Ms. Leigh Toomey (Australia) Mr. Mumba Malila (Zambia) Ms. Priya Gopalan (Malaysia)
In the Matter of
Freeman Aikael Mbowe, Citizen of the United Republic of Tanzania
v.
Government of the United Republic of Tanzania
And Petition for Relief Pursuant to Resolutions 1997/50, 2000/36, 2003/31, 6/4, 15/18, 20/16, 24/71
Submitted By:
Oliver Windridge, International Counsel, on behalf of Mr. Freeman Mbowe (consent form included)
September 15 , 2021
MODEL QUESTIONNAIRE TO BE COMPLETED BY PERSONS ALLEGING ARBITRARY ARREST OR DETENTION
I. Identity
1. Family name: Mbowe
2. First name: Freeman
3. Sex: Male
4. Birth date or age (at the time of detention): September 14, 1961
5. Nationality/Nationalities: Tanzanian.
6. (a) Identity document (if any): Passport
(b) Issued by: Government of Tanzania (c) On (date): N/A.
(d) No.: 19610914114620000120
7. Profession and/or activity (if believed to be relevant to the arrest/detention):
Mr. Mbowe is leader of the political party Chama cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo (Party of Democracy and Progress), also known as Chadema. Chadema is currently the largest opposition political party in Tanzania. 8. Address of usual residence: N/A
II. Arrest
1. Date of arrest:
21st July 2021
2. Place of arrest (as detailed as possible): Mr. Mbowe was arrested in the northwestern city of
Mwanza. His arrest took place in a hotel in the wee hours of the morning (on or around 2.30am) before he was due to attend a Chadema meeting. He was arrested alongside 15 other Chadema officials and staff, all of which have since been released except for Mr. Mbowe.
3. Forces who carried out the arrest or are believed to have carried it out:
Unidentified police officers.
4. Did they show a warrant or other decision by a public authority?
No warrant of arrest was presented, or explanation given at the time of his arrest.
5. Authority who issued the warrant or decision:
Unknown as Mr. Mbowe was arrested without a warrant.
6. Reasons for the arrest imputed by the authorities:
Mr. Mbowe and his Chadema colleagues were not immediately informed of the reasons for their arrest and detention. Upon arrest, Mr. Mbowe was secretly taken from Mwanza to Oysterbay Police Station located in Dar-es-Salaam (approximately 18 hours/ 1100 Kilometers away by car).
The day after his arrest, the police confirmed they were holding Mr. Mbowe for questioning and that he had been separated from his other Chadema colleagues who were being detained in relation to the meeting on constitutional reform . Mr. Mbowe only learnt of the terrorism related offences when he first appeared in court, Aust 5th, 2021.
7. Legal basis for the arrest including relevant legislation applied (if known): Unknown.
III. Detention
1. Date of detention:
21st July 2021 - present.
2. Duration of detention:
Mr. Mbowe has been detained since his arrest on 21st July 2021 and will remain in pre-trial detention for the duration of his trial.
3. Forces holding the detainee under custody:
Prison services.
1. Places of detention (indicate any transfer and present place of detention):
21st July 2021: Upon arrest Mr Mbowe was initially taken to Oyster Bay Police Station, Dar-essalaam.
21st July 2021 - 26th July 2021: Oyster Bay Police Station, Dar-es-salaam (until first court appearance)
26th July 2021- Present: Ukonga Prison, Dar-es-Salaam (upon being detained by Magistrate)
5. Authorities that ordered the detention:
Police (21st July-26th July 2021) then Magistrate (26th July- Present)
6. Reasons for the detention imputed by the authorities:
Initially Mr. Mbowe was arrested together with 15 Chadema members ahead of a planned meeting on constitutional reform. Several days later, the Commissioner General of Police announced that Mr. Mbowe was being charged with Terrorism .
7. Legal basis for the detention including relevant legislation applied (if known):
Unknown.
Mr. Mbowe has now been charged along with three (3) others with several terrorism related offences under section of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act [Cap 200 R.E 2019]. Mr. Mbowe has been particularly charged with the following charges:
(i) Conspiracy
(ii) Provision of funds to commit terrorist acts
In accordance with Section of 148 (5) of Tanzania’s Criminal Procedure Act, terrorism is a nonbailable offence and as such Mr. Mbowe will remain in pre-trial detention pending his acquittal or conviction, or alternatively the State drops the charges. On July 26, Mr. Mbowe appeared before the Magistrate Court of Dar es Salaam Kisutu.
He has been charged with three other defendants, Halfan Bwire Hassan, Adam Hassan Kaekwa (Adamo) and Mohamed Abdillahi Lingwenya under Economic Case No. 21 o 2021. His case has since been referred to the High Court of Tanzania and he now awaits a trial date.
IV. Describe the circumstances of the arrest.
On 21 July 2021, Mr. Mbowe was in Mwanza, Tanzania to attend a scheduled Chadema political party meeting to launch a campaign on constitutional reform. Hours before an internal party meeting was due to take place, police raided the hotel where Mr. Mbowe was staying, arresting Mr. Mbowe and 15 other Chadema officials and workers. It was 2.30am in the morning when Mr. Mbowe was then transported from Mwanza to Oyster Bay Police Station in Dar-es-Salaam, a journey of over 1100 kilometers and approximately 18 hours by car. It has been reported by members of his party that he was blindfolded and shackled when he was taken away.
Mr. Mbowe was not provided with any explanation for his arrest, nor was a warrant for his arrest produced. A day later the police confirmed that he was in custody and that they were questioning him. No further details were given. Later, on or around July 26th, the Tanzanian Police made a public statement in which they claimed Mr. Mbowe was arrested on suspicion of planning to kill government officials and planning and financing terrorist activities.
Whilst in police detention, Mr. Mbowe alleges that he was mistreated and kept in poor conditions in his cell. According to his local lawyers, the police also conducted an illegal search of his family home , where his family was also harassed by police and some items taken from his home without explanation or a warrant. Mr. Mbowe was held in detention for five (5) days with no access to his lawyers or family. Eventually he was allowed access to his legal representatives where he was interviewed by the police but elected not to provide information.
On 26th July 2021, Mr. Mbowe was transferred to Kisutu Magistrates Court, Dar-es-salaam for a first appearance. Neither his family nor his lawyers were informed of his appearance in court. In fact, both were deliberately informed that Mr. Mbowe was being taken to hospital on the day that he was actually produced at court. At court, Mr. Mbowe was charged with Conspiracy to Commit Terrorist Acts and Indirectly Funding Terrorist Acts, pursuant to Section 4(1) (3)(i)(i), Section 27(c) and Section 13 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act No. 21 of 2002, as read together with Section 57(1), 60(2) of the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act, [Cap 200 R:E 2019]. These charges were explained to Mr. Mbowe, but without recourse to his lawyers, they were not at the time understood. Furthermore, Mr. Mbowe was not immediately given a copy of the Charge Sheet. No evidence was disclosed to the defense. Since the offences charged are non-bailable offences, Mr. Mbowe was automatically detained pending further court appearances.
Subsequently, Mr. Mbowe has appeared in court on the following dates :
July 26th 2021 Kisutu Magistrate Court
5th August 2021 Kisutu Magistrate Court
6th August 2021 Kisutu Magistrate Court
9th August 2021 High Court of Tanzania, DSM
13th August 2021 Kisutu Magistrate Court
23rd August 2021 Kisutu Magistrate Court
31 August 2021 Hight Court of Tanzania
1 September 2021 High Court of Tanzania
3 September 2021, High Court of Tanzania
6 September 2021, High Court of Tanzania
14 September 2021, High Court of Tanzania
15 September 2021, High Court of Tanzania
Save for his first appearance on July 26th 2021, Mr. Mbowe was represented by his lawyers.
V. Indicate reasons why you consider the arrest and/or detention to be arbitrary . Specifically provide details on whether:
(i) The basis for the deprivation of liberty is authorized by the Constitution or the domestic law?
(ii) The reason the individual has been deprived of liberty is a result of the exercise of his or her rights or freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
(iii) The international norms relating the right to a fair trial have been totally or partially observed, specifically, articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
(iv) In the case of an asylum seeker, migrant or refugee who has been subjected to prolonged administrative custody, if he or she has been guaranteed the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy?
(v) The individual has been deprived of his or her liberty for reasons of discrimination based on birth; national, ethnic or social origin; language; religion; economic condition; political or other opinion; gender; sexual orientation; or disability or other status which aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human rights?
Mr. Mbowe submits that his detention constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of his liberty under Category 1, II, III and V as set out by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) above, as well as Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) , the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) the African Charter of Human and People’s Rights (African Charter) and the United Nations Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (Body of Principles) .
As highlighted above, Mr. Mbowe was arrested on 21st July 2021 before being subjected to a crosscountry drive to a police station in Dar-es-Salaam. Mr. Mbowe was not immediately informed of the reason for his arrest. Mr. Mbowe was then detained in police custody for five days before being produced at court on 26th July 2021. During his detention in police custody, Mr. Mbowe was not allowed access to his family and was also not allowed immediate access to his lawyers. Since the initial court hearing on 26th July 2021, as a result of the offences for which he is charged being “nonbailable” offences, he has remained in prison. Since the initial appearance Mr. Mbowe has appeared at court on several occasions, outlined in section IV above.
This petition on behalf of Mr. Mbowe thus respectfully raises the following points:
(i) The basis for the deprivation of liberty is authorized by the Constitution or the domestic law?
The manner in which Mr. Mbowe was taken into custody is inconsistent with Tanzania’s national laws. Mr. Mbowe was arrested without a warrant. He was not immediately informed of the reasons for his arrest nor was he promptly informed of the charges he was facing. This was in violation of his due process rights as guaranteed in Tanzania’s Criminal Procedure Act. Instead he was subjected to a long car journey across the country to Dar-es-Salaam. The Constitution of Tanzania mandates that a person may only be deprived of his liberty in a manner that is prescribed by the law. Generally, the Criminal Procedure Act provides that for most crimes, other than crimes committed in the presence of a police officer, arrests shall be made subject to an arrest warrant based on sufficient evidence. According to the Charge Sheet against Mr. Mbowe, the alleged crimes were committed sometime in 2020. The individuals charged with Mr. Mbowe were arrested in 2020. The arresting authorities therefore had ample time to seek an arrest warrant from the relevant authorities as provided for by law.
The police also failed to bring Mr. Mbowe before a court of law within the prescribed twenty-fourhour period or as soon as was practicable. His detention for five days without charge, without being presented before a court within the prescribed time was thus in violation of Tanzania’s national laws. Furthermore, he was not immediately granted access to a lawyer, even though the police confirmed that he was been held for questioning. Section 53 of the Criminal Procedure Act specifically provides that a police officer shall not ask a detained person any questions unless the person has been informed of his right to communicate with a lawyer or a friend. According to reports from members of his party, he was at some point blindfolded and shackled. Section 55 of same Act, also provides that “[a] person shall, while under restraint, be treated with humanity and with respect for human dignity” and that “[n]o person shall, while under restraint, be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment”.
This petition submits that his arrest unfortunately fits a pattern where authorities have failed to follow due process procedures, especially in relation to the arrest of government opposition figures, human rights defenders, journalists and civil society representatives. Several human rights organizations and governments have expressed concern over the failure by Tanzanian authorities to respect the due process rights of those taken into custody. In December 2019, human rights lawyer Tito Magoti was arrested in a manner akin to an abduction. He was taken away in an unmarked vehicle and held in incommunicado detention for several days before the authorities admitted he was being held in custody. Similarly, journalist Eric Kabendera was also arrested and held in- incommunicado detention for several days before being presented before a court of law. Regional and international human rights bodies have repeatedly stated that incommunicado detention heightens the likelihood of torture and mistreatment of detainees and is a violation of due process.
(ii) The reason the individual has been deprived of liberty is a result of the exercise of his or her rights or freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
Mr. Mbowe was arrested together with several members of his opposition party, Chadema. The arrests were carried out in the early hours of the morning before a planned internal meeting on constitutional reform. The day before the arrest, authorities announced that any “unnecessary gatherings” would be illegal due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. The banning of meetings or assemblies by the government was immediately criticized and seen as a deliberate attempt to thwart meetings by the opposition party.
In recent months, there has been increased discussion among Tanzanian citizens over the need for constitutional reform. 28 While Mr. Mbowe was separated from his fellow arrested Chadema colleagues and the authorities later categorically stated that he was facing charges related to terrorism and not constitutional reform, the timing and manner of his arrest, where due process was not respected, as well as Tanzania’s repressive human rights record, highly points to this case being one of retaliation for leading his party in advocating for constitutional reform. As shall be highlighted in the following paragraphs, the Tanzanian authorities have exhibited an intolerance for dissent. As such, immediately following Mr. Mbowe’s arrest, organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch29 expressed concern that the country was backtracking on recent promises of reform. In a statement, Amnesty International highlighted that “ the timing of Mbowe’s arrest in Mwanza, hours before he was due to launch a fresh push for a new constitution for Tanzania raised questions around whether or not it was “a tactic to silence critical voices.”
In recent years, the government of Tanzania has come under strong criticism for its increasing clampdown on human rights defenders, civil society, journalists, bloggers, opposition politicians and their supporters, the media and other dissenting voices in Tanzania. Several organizations have documented and expressed serious concerns over the country’s declining human rights situation, which intensified during the country’s 2020 pre and post general elections period. It was hoped that President Suluhu who came into power in March 202133 following the unexpected death of president Magufuli, would take the opportunity to improve the country’s human rights record.
Unfortunately, President Suluhu’s government has already come under criticism for a string of recent arrests of opposition members and government critics, including Mr. Mbowe and the arbitrary suspension of at least two media houses. In addition to the 15 other Chadema party members who were seemingly arrested , albeit briefly in violation of their right to freedom of assembly and association, the authorities in September 2021, also arrested female members of Chadema who were peacefully protesting Mr. Mbowe’s arrest.
As shall be further highlighted in section V(v) below, this is not the first time that Mr. Mbowe has been arrested in relation to the exercise of his fundamental freedoms as a member for the opposition Chadema party. It is submitted that Mr. Mbowe’s July 2021 arrest, detention and prosecution is the latest in a systematic pattern of judicial harassment. His arrest thus violates his right to freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of assembly and the right to fully participate in the running of his country. As the WGAD will be aware, the right to freedom of expression and the ability to freely assemble and associate with others of a likeminded manner, particularly on matters of public interest, is not only a basic individual right but necessary to a free and just society.
(iii) The international norms relating the right to a fair trial have been totally or partially observed, specifically, articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
There have been several violations of Mr. Mbowe’s right to a fair trial as detailed below:
(a) The right to be informed of the reasons for arrest; right to be promptly informed of the charges; and the right to be promptly brought before a court.
Mr. Mbowe was arrested on 21st July 2021. At the time of his arrest, he was not immediately informed of the reason for his arrest. He was detained for five days, well after the legally acceptable period of delay, before he was eventually brought to court on 26th July 2021 and for the first time, he was informed of the charges against him.
Article 9(2) of the ICCPR specifically requires that anyone arrested “shall be informed, at the time of the arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.”38 Article 9(3) of the ICCPR further states that anyone arrested “shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law”. The latter provision is meant to ensure that anyone arrested or detained is entitled to a judicial hearing to determine the lawfulness of his or her detention.
While the exact meaning of “promptly” may vary depending on objective circumstances, the United Nations Human Rights Committee, has explained that delays should not exceed a few days from the time of arrest and that 48 hours is ordinarily sufficient. Any delay longer than 48 hours must remain absolutely exceptional and be justified under the circumstances. The Committee went on to note that longer detention in the custody of law enforcement officials without judicial control unnecessarily increases the risk of ill-treatment.
The African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa (African Commission Guidelines) as well as the Body of Principles have echoed similar guarantees of an accused’s right to be informed of the charges and to be promptly brought before a court.
The Tanzanian authorities were in flagrant violation of Mr. Mbowe’s due process rights in failing to immediately inform his of the reason of his arrest, the failure to produce him before a court of law with 24- hours under Tanzanian laws and 48-hours under regional and internal human rights, he was also not promptly informed of the charges against him
(a) (i) Insufficient details of in the criminal charges
While Mr. Mbowe was eventually informed of the charges against him, the Charge Sheet fails to meet international standards. Article 14 (3) (a) of the ICCPR provides that in the determination of a criminal charge, an accused person shall be entitled to “…be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him”. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has elaborated on this provision to mean that the charges must include “both the law and the alleged general facts on which the charge is based”. The Yugoslavia Tribunal has clarified that where it is alleged that an accused has personally committed a crime, material facts such as the identity of the victim, the time and place of the events and the means by which the acts were committed, have to be set out in detail. The tribunal also clarified that in largescale crimes, and broad crimes, “t is not acceptable for the Prosecution to omit the material aspects of its main allegations in the indictment with the aim of moulding the case against the accused in the course of the trial depending on how the evidence unfolds”.
As is clear from the charge sheet, there is clearly insufficient information on the facts to support the allegations. The charge sheet has a huge geographical (“within Moshi District in Kilimanjaro Region, and at various places within Dar es Salaam, Morogoro and Arusha regions”) and temporal (“ on diverse dates between 1st May 202 and 1 August 2020”) scope. The charge sheet also lacks sufficient details on the criminal acts themselves, simply stating that Mr. Mbowe, alongside other “conspire[d] to blow up fueling stations and other public gatherings”. As such, Mr. Mbowe lacks adequate information about the scope of the case against him, thereby severely undermining his ability to prepare for trial.
The High Court has since ordered the prosecution to amend its charges, so that the allegations reflect that the accused persons intended to advance a political, ideological or religious agenda.
(b) The accused’s right to legal representation
As outlined above, Mr. Mbowe was arrested and detained for five (5) days without access to his legal representatives. His first appearance in court on August 5th, was in the absence of his legal practitioners and without prior consultation. The right to legal representation is one of the key cornerstones of a fair trial and is particularly important in the early stages of one’s arrest. Article 14 of the ICCPR provides everyone facing criminal charges the right to defend one’s self in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing. The United Nations Principles and Guidelines on Access to Legal Aid in Criminal Justice Systems, require that member states “ensure that anyone who is detained, arrested, suspected of, or charged with a criminal offence… is entitled to legal aid at all stages of the criminal justice process.” The African Commission Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa state that an arrested person must not only have the right to legal representation of their choice but the facilities to exercise that right. The fundamental right to legal counsel as well to an accused person’s family is also outlined under Principles 17, 18 and 19 of the Body Principles.
(c) The accused’s right to inform family members of the place of detention.
During Mr. Mbowe’s five-day detention in police custody, he was not afforded an opportunity to notify his family of his arrest and where he was being detained. The African Commission Guidelines state that “[a]nyone who is arrested or detained has the right to inform, or have the authorities notify, their family or friends. The information must include the fact of their arrest or detention and the place the person is kept in custody”. Furthermore, Principle 16 of the Body of Principles provides that “…after each transfer from one place of detention or imprisonment to another, a detained or imprisoned person shall be entitled to notify or to require the competent authority to notify members of his family or other appropriate persons of his choice of his arrest, detention or imprisonment or of the transfer and of the place where he is kept in custody”. It is internationally recognized that “torture is most frequently practiced during incommunicado detention” and “it is in the period immediately following deprivation of liberty that the risk of intimidation and physical ill-treatment is the greatest.” Contact with family members immediately after detention is a fundamental safeguard against torture and other ill-treatment.
(d) Automatic denial of the right to bail
Section 148 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a police officer in charge of a police station or a court before whom an accused person is brought or appears, shall not admit that person to bail if that person is charged with certain crimes including -terrorism offences. This provision thus provides for a blanket denial of bail for certain crimes and as such, Mr. Mbowe is not entitled to bail and he remains in detention pending the finalization of his case. Mr. Mbowe submits that Section 148(5)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the resulting denial of the right to apply for bail is a violation of his due process rights as guaranteed under Article 9 and 10 of the UDHR, Articles 9 and 14 of the ICCPR, and Principles 38 and 39 of the Body of Principles.
Unfortunately, a clear pattern has emerged of Tanzanian authorities deliberately selecting nonbailable offences to charge civil society and political opponents. Those charged with non-bailable offences, regardless of the frivolousness (baselessness) of the allegations, can spend years in pretrial detention. Individuals in Tanzania charged with non-bailable offences have reportedly spent months and even years in detention without trial.59 In the case of Mr. Mbowe, the three (3) other individuals who are his co-accused, were arrested last year in or around October, 2020. They were also charged with terrorism and other crimes and were automatically denied bail. For almost a year their case did not progress to trial, and it is unclear what was the delay, especially given that they were being held in pre-trial detention without the option of bail.
In a report to the Financial Action Task Force, the American Bar Association Center, for Human Rights highlighted how Tanzania’s non-bailable offenses were a violation of regional and international law. The report also raised concern at how the Tanzanian authorities were misusing non-bailable offenses to indefinitely target government critics. In several instances accused persons were held in pre-trial detention for months or even years, while their cases repeatedly postponed while the State carried out investigations. Faced with the possibility of a prolonged period in detention without trial, in several instances, the accused person is coerced into signing a guilty plea and paying a hefty fine.
Article 9(1) ICCPR states that: “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.” Principle 11 of the Body of Principles specifically outlines that a person “shall not be kept in detention without being given an effective opportunity to be heard promptly by a judicial or other authority” and that a detained person and his or her counsel (if any) “shall receive prompt and full communication of any order of detention, together with the reasons therefor.” Principle 11 also empowers a judicial or other authority “to review as appropriate the continuance of detention.” The right to liberty under the African Charter is enshrined in Article 6 thereof. The right stems from the presumption that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty and, as such, the law favors the release of defendants pending adjudication of charges. Deprivation of liberty pending trial is harsh and oppressive, subjects defendants to economic and psychological hardship, interferes with their ability to defend themselves, and, in many instances, deprives their families of support.
Article 9(3) of the ICCPR thus provides that “t shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgement.” Detention in custody of persons awaiting trial should therefore be the exception rather than the rule. Each case must thus be judged on its own merits with courts taking into consideration factors such as (1) the seriousness of the alleged crime (2) whether there is overwhelming evidence against the accused (3) possibility of the accused interfering with witnesses and evidence; and (4) where the accused poses a flight risk or is a danger to the community if granted bail.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee in elaborating on the above, has specified that “detention pending trial must be based on an individualized determination that it is reasonable and necessary taking into account all the circumstances, for such purposes as to prevent flight, interference with witnesses and evidence or the recurrence of crime.” The relevant factors should be specified in law and should not include vague and expansive standards such as “public security.” The Committee has further stated that “pretrial detention should not be mandatory for all defendants charged with a particular crime, without regard to individual circumstances.”
Courts must strive to put conditions that favour the liberty of an accused in order to minimize the risk of an innocent person serving a sentence prior to conviction. As such, courts must examine whether alternatives to pretrial detention, such as bail, electronic bracelets, or other conditions would render detention unnecessary in the particular case. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules) call for the avoidance of pre-trial detention. The rules provide that in cases where pre-trial detention is used, it should be a measure of last resort and should not last longer than is necessary. The African Commission Guidelines echo international principles on the right to bail, providing that “unless there is sufficient evidence that deems it necessary to prevent a person arrested on a criminal charge from fleeing, interfering with witnesses or posing a clear and serious risk to others, States must ensure that they are not kept in custody pending their trial. However, release may be subject to certain conditions or guarantees, including the payment of bail.” In addition, while the Ouagadougou Declaration and Plan of Action on Accelerating Prisons and Penal Reforms in Africa is not binding law, the declaration emphasizes the importance of a criminal justice policy that controls the growth of the prison population and encourages the use of alternatives to imprisonment. One of the main strategies includes detaining persons awaiting trial only as a last resort and for the shortest time possible. As highlighted above, the pre-trial detention of Mr. Mbowe without the option of bail is a violation of his right as an accused to the presumption of innocence. The case of human rights lawyer, Tito Magoti is a strong example of case of a Tanzanian government critic who was held in pre-trial detention for close to a year and his case repeatedly postponed while the prosecution investigated the matter. Similar to Mr. Mbowe’s case, he was automatically denied bail under Section 148(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act. In Magoti’s case, the U.N Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in the case of Tito Magoti specifically stated that “[m]andatory pretrial detention- in [in this case], for an offence that is non-bailable under section 148(50 of the Criminal Procedure Act- is in violation of a State’s obligations under international human rights law”.
It is submitted that Mr. Mbowe’s mandatory pre-trial detention is also a violation of his right to health. In light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization has recommended that states decongest prisons. While he has been charged with a serious offence, regional and international law proscribe that each case should assessed on its own merits. Mr. Mobowe should have had an opportunity to seek his pre-trial release based on factors such as the weight of evidence against him, the seriousness of the crime, his flight risk, as well as his health status and the COVID-19 pandemic.
(v) The individual has been deprived of his or her liberty for reasons of discrimination based on birth; national, ethnic or social origin; language; religion; economic condition; political or other opinion; gender; sexual orientation; or disability or other status which aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human rights?
It is submitted that Mr Mbowe’s arrest is part of a systematic misuse of the criminal justice system to target political opposition. As highlighted in section V (ii) above, opposition members and critics of the government have been victims of arbitrary arrests and in several instances, physical attacks. Mr. Mbowe’s arrest in this case is not the first that he has been arrested in relation to his activities as a member of the opposition party, Chadema. Following the October 2020 elections, Mr. Mbowe was arrested together with several other opposition leaders. The arrests related to the calls by the opposition for protests over the just held elections which were reportedly marred by serious irregularities. On these grounds, the opposition were calling for peaceful protests to demand a rerun of the elections. Hundreds of other opposition supporters were also arrested following the October elections. Following the arrest of Mr. Mbowe and his colleagues, several human rights organizations as well as governments raised concern over the arrests. Mr. Mbowe and the other party leaders were released a day later without charge.
In 2018, Mr. Mbowe and several other members of the Chadema party were arrested in relation to a gathering during a by-election campaign in Kinondoni, Dar es Salaam. They were charged with numerous crimes including incitement to violence, making seditious statements and unlawful assembly. In 2020, Mr Mbowe and five others in the 2018 arrest, were convicted of sedition, sentenced to five months in prison or a fine. At the time of their arrest, other opposition parties in Tanzania highlighted that the arrest of opposition politicians in Tanzania was the “new normal, a fearful nation”. Recently, the Appeal Court reversed their conviction.
In addition to arrests of opposition leaders, the government of Tanzania through suspected state agents, have been accused of physical attacks on opposition members. Several months ahead of the 2020 elections, in June 2020, Mr. Mbowe was brutally attacked by unidentified assailants. He suffered a broken leg and had to be hospitalized. His party, Chadema alleged that it was a politically motivated attack. While the police undertook to investigate the attack, to date, no one has been arrested or held accountable for the incident. The attack against Mr. Mbowe was condemned as “only the latest in a long series of disturbing acts of violence and harassment perpetrated against members of the opposition”.80
As documented by many credible human rights organizations, the government of Tanzania under the authority of former president Magufuli, and now president Saima Suluhu, has exhibited an intolerance for opposition party activities and dissenting views. Through restrictive legislation and policy, arbitrary arrests and physical attacks, the government has cracked down on opposition members. As stated above, the timing of Mr. Mbowe’s arrests, the due process violations thus far, Tanzania’s misuse of its non-bailable offenses and the culture of arrests of critical voices and opposition leaders, highly points to this case being politically motivated.
VI. Indicate internal steps, including domestic remedies, taken especially with the legal and administrative authorities, particularly for the purpose of establishing the detention and, as appropriate, their results or the reasons why such steps or remedies were ineffective or why they were not taken.
Mr. Mbowe’s lawyers are providing him with legal representation and have to date filed a number of applications. First, Mr. Mbowe challenged the jurisdiction of the Economic Crimes Division of the High Court to preside over the matter, arguing that the matter should be referred to the High Court in general. On September 2, 2020, the court rejected this application ruling that the Economic .
Crimes Division had jurisdiction. The second challenge related to the defectiveness of the Charge Sheet. One of the issues raised was that the Charge Sheet and facts outlined did not disclose an offence because the word “terrorism intention” was not defined under Section 4(2) of the Terrorism Act. Another objection was that in counts 1, 3, 4 and 6, the alleged facts failed to disclose the mandatory link connecting the defendants acts to terrorism as defined in the Terrorism Act. While the judge overruled two of the defense’s preliminary objections, the Court acknowledged that the information in the charge did not disclose an act of terrorism as it did not disclose the purpose of advancing either a political, ideological or religious purpose as required by the Terrorism Act. The judge ordered the prosecution to amend the charges against Mr. Mbowe and the other accused persons.
On September 6, 2021, Mr. Mbowe’s lawyers applied for the recusal of the sitting Judge. The request was based on the argument that the judge, despite being presented with arguments in support of the defendants’ preliminary objections, had ruled adversely against them, without taking into consideration some of the key authorities cited. Judge Elinaza Luvanda, agreed with the defense submissions and recused himself. A new judge has since been assigned to the case and a preliminary hearing was held on September 14, 2021.
With regards to Mr. Mbowe’s pre-trial detention, as stated above, due to the automatic denial of bail as proscribed under Section 148(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), Mr. Mbowe may not be released on bail. At present, there is no recourse from the courts on this issue. In 2019, a petitioner challenged before the Tanzanian High Court, the constitutionality of Section 148(5) of the CPA on non-bailable offences. In May 2020, the Court agreed that the entirety of Section 148(5) of the CPA was unconstitutional and that to deny a case-by-case determination of bail is to risk denying a detainee the right to individual liberty and equality before the law . The Court further held that Section was “too broad” and “susceptible to not only abuses, but also arbitrary decisions.” Section 13(6)(a) of Tanzania’s Constitution specifically provides that ‘no person charged with a criminal offense shall be treated as guilty until proved guilty of that offence. Unfortunately, in August of the same year, Tanzania’s Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision, ruling that the CPA’s automatic bail denial mandate is constitutional under domestic law. While the Appeal Court recognized that automatic bail denial limited certain individual liberties, it found such limitations justified in the case of certain serious crimes in order to “[ensure] the availability of the accused during trial and to ensure peace and order to the community”. The decision of the Court of Appeals is final and as such Mr. Mbowe has no recourse within the local courts on the issues of bail. Unless the charges are dropped or his case is tried to completion, he risks being detained for an indefinite period.
VII. Full name, postal and electronic addresses of the person(s) submitting the information (telephone and fax number, if possible).
Oliver Windridge International Counsel oliver.windridge@gmail.com
Date: 15th September 2021
Attachments
Attached to email filing submission
(1) Consent Form (3 pages)
(2) Charge Sheet (4 pages)
(3) Charge Sheet of Co-Defendants (6 pages)
Mashitaka hayo yameshapokelewa na kuingizwa kwenye Mfumo rasmi.
Habari zaidi...
September 16, 2021
Tanzania: UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Petition in the Case of Freeman Mbowe
BACKGROUND
On September 15, 2021, Mr. Oliver Windridge, an international lawyer recruited by the American Bar Association, Center for Human Rights, under its Justice Defenders Program, filed a communication to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on behalf of imprisoned Tanzanian opposition leader Freeman Mbowe.
Mr. Mbowe is the leader of Chama cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo (Party of Democracy and Progress), also known as Chadema. He was arrested in the early morning hours of July 21, 2021, ahead of a planned party meeting on constitutional reform in Tanzania. As detailed in the petition, Mr. Mbowe was arrested without a warrant, driven for 18 hours, over 1000 kilometers, from Mwanza to Dar es Salaam, and held in incommunicado detention for five (5) days. During this time, he was denied access to a lawyer and to his family and not informed of the charges he was facing. On July 26, he appeared before the Kisutu Magistrate Court where he was charged with conspiracy and the provision of funds to commit terrorist acts under Tanzania’s Economic and Organized Crime Control Act and its Prevention of Terrorism Act, respectively. Because he is facing terrorism-related charges, Mr. Mbowe was automatically denied the right to apply for bail pending trial under Section 148(5) of Tanzania’s Criminal Procedure Act. He remains detained as he awaits his trial.
Following Mr. Mbowe’s arrest, several human rights organizations and governments expressed concern that his arrest was a continuation of an ongoing crackdown on opposing voices in Tanzania. Mr. Mbowe’s recent arrest is not the first time that the authorities have detained and prosecuted him in relation to his activities as an opposition leader and vocal critic of the government. Mr. Mbowe has in the past also been the victim of physical attacks, which his party alleges were politically motivated.
The communication argues that Mr. Mbowe’s pre-trial detention is arbitrary under international human rights law for the following reasons: (i) the manner of his arrest and incommunicado detention for five days was a violation of recognized due process rights; (ii) the automatic denial of bail without due regard for the individual circumstances of Mr. Mbowe’s case under Section 148(5), is a violation of the presumption of innocence; and (iii) the timing of the arrest of Mr. Mbowe, the manner of his arrest and Tanzania’s record of repression, strongly points to Mr. Mbowe’s case being politically motivated in violation of Tanzania’s regional and international human rights obligations.
The views expressed herein represent the opinions of the authors. They have not been reviewed or approved by the House of Delegates or the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association and, accordingly, should not be construed as representing the position of the Association or any of its entities.
===
OLIVER WINDRIDGE
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW | INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW
My reference: UNWGAD/Mbowe/Tanzania/2021
UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Via e-mail wgad@ohchr.org
15 September 2021
Dear Sir or Madam
Submission of Complaint Before the UN Working Group of Arbitrary Detention on behalf of Mr. Freeman Mbowe (United Republic of Tanzania)
I write on behalf of Mr. Freeman Mbowe a citizen of the United Republic of Tanzania. Mr. Mbowe is a prominent opposition political leader, currently detained in Tanzania. In this application, it is argued that Mr. Freeman’s current detention is arbitrary as a result of his arrest, detention and prosecution for acts entirely permissible under international human rights law.
In support of this application please find attached:
1. Completed UNWGAD Model Questionnaire (20 pages)
2. Signed consent form (3 pages)
3. Copy of charge sheet (4 pages)
4. Copy of charge sheet of co-defendants (6 pages)
Should I be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me. I would be grateful if you could acknowledge safe receipt of this application at your earliest convenience.
Yours sincerely
Oliver Windridge
International Counsel for Mr. Mbowe
oliver.windridge@gmail.com @oliverwindridge oliverwindridge
=====
United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Chairman/Rapporteur: Ms. Elina Steinerte (Latvia), Vice-Chairperson on Communications: Dr. Miriam
Estrada-Castillo (Ecuador) Ms. Leigh Toomey (Australia) Mr. Mumba Malila (Zambia) Ms. Priya Gopalan (Malaysia)
In the Matter of
Freeman Aikael Mbowe, Citizen of the United Republic of Tanzania
v.
Government of the United Republic of Tanzania
And Petition for Relief Pursuant to Resolutions 1997/50, 2000/36, 2003/31, 6/4, 15/18, 20/16, 24/71
Submitted By:
Oliver Windridge, International Counsel, on behalf of Mr. Freeman Mbowe (consent form included)
September 15 , 2021
MODEL QUESTIONNAIRE TO BE COMPLETED BY PERSONS ALLEGING ARBITRARY ARREST OR DETENTION
I. Identity
1. Family name: Mbowe
2. First name: Freeman
3. Sex: Male
4. Birth date or age (at the time of detention): September 14, 1961
5. Nationality/Nationalities: Tanzanian.
6. (a) Identity document (if any): Passport
(b) Issued by: Government of Tanzania (c) On (date): N/A.
(d) No.: 19610914114620000120
7. Profession and/or activity (if believed to be relevant to the arrest/detention):
Mr. Mbowe is leader of the political party Chama cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo (Party of Democracy and Progress), also known as Chadema. Chadema is currently the largest opposition political party in Tanzania. 8. Address of usual residence: N/A
II. Arrest
1. Date of arrest:
21st July 2021
2. Place of arrest (as detailed as possible): Mr. Mbowe was arrested in the northwestern city of
Mwanza. His arrest took place in a hotel in the wee hours of the morning (on or around 2.30am) before he was due to attend a Chadema meeting. He was arrested alongside 15 other Chadema officials and staff, all of which have since been released except for Mr. Mbowe.
3. Forces who carried out the arrest or are believed to have carried it out:
Unidentified police officers.
4. Did they show a warrant or other decision by a public authority?
No warrant of arrest was presented, or explanation given at the time of his arrest.
5. Authority who issued the warrant or decision:
Unknown as Mr. Mbowe was arrested without a warrant.
6. Reasons for the arrest imputed by the authorities:
Mr. Mbowe and his Chadema colleagues were not immediately informed of the reasons for their arrest and detention. Upon arrest, Mr. Mbowe was secretly taken from Mwanza to Oysterbay Police Station located in Dar-es-Salaam (approximately 18 hours/ 1100 Kilometers away by car).
The day after his arrest, the police confirmed they were holding Mr. Mbowe for questioning and that he had been separated from his other Chadema colleagues who were being detained in relation to the meeting on constitutional reform . Mr. Mbowe only learnt of the terrorism related offences when he first appeared in court, Aust 5th, 2021.
7. Legal basis for the arrest including relevant legislation applied (if known): Unknown.
III. Detention
1. Date of detention:
21st July 2021 - present.
2. Duration of detention:
Mr. Mbowe has been detained since his arrest on 21st July 2021 and will remain in pre-trial detention for the duration of his trial.
3. Forces holding the detainee under custody:
Prison services.
1. Places of detention (indicate any transfer and present place of detention):
21st July 2021: Upon arrest Mr Mbowe was initially taken to Oyster Bay Police Station, Dar-essalaam.
21st July 2021 - 26th July 2021: Oyster Bay Police Station, Dar-es-salaam (until first court appearance)
26th July 2021- Present: Ukonga Prison, Dar-es-Salaam (upon being detained by Magistrate)
5. Authorities that ordered the detention:
Police (21st July-26th July 2021) then Magistrate (26th July- Present)
6. Reasons for the detention imputed by the authorities:
Initially Mr. Mbowe was arrested together with 15 Chadema members ahead of a planned meeting on constitutional reform. Several days later, the Commissioner General of Police announced that Mr. Mbowe was being charged with Terrorism .
7. Legal basis for the detention including relevant legislation applied (if known):
Unknown.
Mr. Mbowe has now been charged along with three (3) others with several terrorism related offences under section of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act [Cap 200 R.E 2019]. Mr. Mbowe has been particularly charged with the following charges:
(i) Conspiracy
(ii) Provision of funds to commit terrorist acts
In accordance with Section of 148 (5) of Tanzania’s Criminal Procedure Act, terrorism is a nonbailable offence and as such Mr. Mbowe will remain in pre-trial detention pending his acquittal or conviction, or alternatively the State drops the charges. On July 26, Mr. Mbowe appeared before the Magistrate Court of Dar es Salaam Kisutu.
He has been charged with three other defendants, Halfan Bwire Hassan, Adam Hassan Kaekwa (Adamo) and Mohamed Abdillahi Lingwenya under Economic Case No. 21 o 2021. His case has since been referred to the High Court of Tanzania and he now awaits a trial date.
IV. Describe the circumstances of the arrest.
On 21 July 2021, Mr. Mbowe was in Mwanza, Tanzania to attend a scheduled Chadema political party meeting to launch a campaign on constitutional reform. Hours before an internal party meeting was due to take place, police raided the hotel where Mr. Mbowe was staying, arresting Mr. Mbowe and 15 other Chadema officials and workers. It was 2.30am in the morning when Mr. Mbowe was then transported from Mwanza to Oyster Bay Police Station in Dar-es-Salaam, a journey of over 1100 kilometers and approximately 18 hours by car. It has been reported by members of his party that he was blindfolded and shackled when he was taken away.
Mr. Mbowe was not provided with any explanation for his arrest, nor was a warrant for his arrest produced. A day later the police confirmed that he was in custody and that they were questioning him. No further details were given. Later, on or around July 26th, the Tanzanian Police made a public statement in which they claimed Mr. Mbowe was arrested on suspicion of planning to kill government officials and planning and financing terrorist activities.
Whilst in police detention, Mr. Mbowe alleges that he was mistreated and kept in poor conditions in his cell. According to his local lawyers, the police also conducted an illegal search of his family home , where his family was also harassed by police and some items taken from his home without explanation or a warrant. Mr. Mbowe was held in detention for five (5) days with no access to his lawyers or family. Eventually he was allowed access to his legal representatives where he was interviewed by the police but elected not to provide information.
On 26th July 2021, Mr. Mbowe was transferred to Kisutu Magistrates Court, Dar-es-salaam for a first appearance. Neither his family nor his lawyers were informed of his appearance in court. In fact, both were deliberately informed that Mr. Mbowe was being taken to hospital on the day that he was actually produced at court. At court, Mr. Mbowe was charged with Conspiracy to Commit Terrorist Acts and Indirectly Funding Terrorist Acts, pursuant to Section 4(1) (3)(i)(i), Section 27(c) and Section 13 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act No. 21 of 2002, as read together with Section 57(1), 60(2) of the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act, [Cap 200 R:E 2019]. These charges were explained to Mr. Mbowe, but without recourse to his lawyers, they were not at the time understood. Furthermore, Mr. Mbowe was not immediately given a copy of the Charge Sheet. No evidence was disclosed to the defense. Since the offences charged are non-bailable offences, Mr. Mbowe was automatically detained pending further court appearances.
Subsequently, Mr. Mbowe has appeared in court on the following dates :
July 26th 2021 Kisutu Magistrate Court
5th August 2021 Kisutu Magistrate Court
6th August 2021 Kisutu Magistrate Court
9th August 2021 High Court of Tanzania, DSM
13th August 2021 Kisutu Magistrate Court
23rd August 2021 Kisutu Magistrate Court
31 August 2021 Hight Court of Tanzania
1 September 2021 High Court of Tanzania
3 September 2021, High Court of Tanzania
6 September 2021, High Court of Tanzania
14 September 2021, High Court of Tanzania
15 September 2021, High Court of Tanzania
Save for his first appearance on July 26th 2021, Mr. Mbowe was represented by his lawyers.
V. Indicate reasons why you consider the arrest and/or detention to be arbitrary . Specifically provide details on whether:
(i) The basis for the deprivation of liberty is authorized by the Constitution or the domestic law?
(ii) The reason the individual has been deprived of liberty is a result of the exercise of his or her rights or freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
(iii) The international norms relating the right to a fair trial have been totally or partially observed, specifically, articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
(iv) In the case of an asylum seeker, migrant or refugee who has been subjected to prolonged administrative custody, if he or she has been guaranteed the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy?
(v) The individual has been deprived of his or her liberty for reasons of discrimination based on birth; national, ethnic or social origin; language; religion; economic condition; political or other opinion; gender; sexual orientation; or disability or other status which aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human rights?
Mr. Mbowe submits that his detention constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of his liberty under Category 1, II, III and V as set out by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) above, as well as Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) , the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) the African Charter of Human and People’s Rights (African Charter) and the United Nations Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (Body of Principles) .
As highlighted above, Mr. Mbowe was arrested on 21st July 2021 before being subjected to a crosscountry drive to a police station in Dar-es-Salaam. Mr. Mbowe was not immediately informed of the reason for his arrest. Mr. Mbowe was then detained in police custody for five days before being produced at court on 26th July 2021. During his detention in police custody, Mr. Mbowe was not allowed access to his family and was also not allowed immediate access to his lawyers. Since the initial court hearing on 26th July 2021, as a result of the offences for which he is charged being “nonbailable” offences, he has remained in prison. Since the initial appearance Mr. Mbowe has appeared at court on several occasions, outlined in section IV above.
This petition on behalf of Mr. Mbowe thus respectfully raises the following points:
(i) The basis for the deprivation of liberty is authorized by the Constitution or the domestic law?
The manner in which Mr. Mbowe was taken into custody is inconsistent with Tanzania’s national laws. Mr. Mbowe was arrested without a warrant. He was not immediately informed of the reasons for his arrest nor was he promptly informed of the charges he was facing. This was in violation of his due process rights as guaranteed in Tanzania’s Criminal Procedure Act. Instead he was subjected to a long car journey across the country to Dar-es-Salaam. The Constitution of Tanzania mandates that a person may only be deprived of his liberty in a manner that is prescribed by the law. Generally, the Criminal Procedure Act provides that for most crimes, other than crimes committed in the presence of a police officer, arrests shall be made subject to an arrest warrant based on sufficient evidence. According to the Charge Sheet against Mr. Mbowe, the alleged crimes were committed sometime in 2020. The individuals charged with Mr. Mbowe were arrested in 2020. The arresting authorities therefore had ample time to seek an arrest warrant from the relevant authorities as provided for by law.
The police also failed to bring Mr. Mbowe before a court of law within the prescribed twenty-fourhour period or as soon as was practicable. His detention for five days without charge, without being presented before a court within the prescribed time was thus in violation of Tanzania’s national laws. Furthermore, he was not immediately granted access to a lawyer, even though the police confirmed that he was been held for questioning. Section 53 of the Criminal Procedure Act specifically provides that a police officer shall not ask a detained person any questions unless the person has been informed of his right to communicate with a lawyer or a friend. According to reports from members of his party, he was at some point blindfolded and shackled. Section 55 of same Act, also provides that “[a] person shall, while under restraint, be treated with humanity and with respect for human dignity” and that “[n]o person shall, while under restraint, be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment”.
This petition submits that his arrest unfortunately fits a pattern where authorities have failed to follow due process procedures, especially in relation to the arrest of government opposition figures, human rights defenders, journalists and civil society representatives. Several human rights organizations and governments have expressed concern over the failure by Tanzanian authorities to respect the due process rights of those taken into custody. In December 2019, human rights lawyer Tito Magoti was arrested in a manner akin to an abduction. He was taken away in an unmarked vehicle and held in incommunicado detention for several days before the authorities admitted he was being held in custody. Similarly, journalist Eric Kabendera was also arrested and held in- incommunicado detention for several days before being presented before a court of law. Regional and international human rights bodies have repeatedly stated that incommunicado detention heightens the likelihood of torture and mistreatment of detainees and is a violation of due process.
(ii) The reason the individual has been deprived of liberty is a result of the exercise of his or her rights or freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
Mr. Mbowe was arrested together with several members of his opposition party, Chadema. The arrests were carried out in the early hours of the morning before a planned internal meeting on constitutional reform. The day before the arrest, authorities announced that any “unnecessary gatherings” would be illegal due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. The banning of meetings or assemblies by the government was immediately criticized and seen as a deliberate attempt to thwart meetings by the opposition party.
In recent months, there has been increased discussion among Tanzanian citizens over the need for constitutional reform. 28 While Mr. Mbowe was separated from his fellow arrested Chadema colleagues and the authorities later categorically stated that he was facing charges related to terrorism and not constitutional reform, the timing and manner of his arrest, where due process was not respected, as well as Tanzania’s repressive human rights record, highly points to this case being one of retaliation for leading his party in advocating for constitutional reform. As shall be highlighted in the following paragraphs, the Tanzanian authorities have exhibited an intolerance for dissent. As such, immediately following Mr. Mbowe’s arrest, organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch29 expressed concern that the country was backtracking on recent promises of reform. In a statement, Amnesty International highlighted that “ the timing of Mbowe’s arrest in Mwanza, hours before he was due to launch a fresh push for a new constitution for Tanzania raised questions around whether or not it was “a tactic to silence critical voices.”
In recent years, the government of Tanzania has come under strong criticism for its increasing clampdown on human rights defenders, civil society, journalists, bloggers, opposition politicians and their supporters, the media and other dissenting voices in Tanzania. Several organizations have documented and expressed serious concerns over the country’s declining human rights situation, which intensified during the country’s 2020 pre and post general elections period. It was hoped that President Suluhu who came into power in March 202133 following the unexpected death of president Magufuli, would take the opportunity to improve the country’s human rights record.
Unfortunately, President Suluhu’s government has already come under criticism for a string of recent arrests of opposition members and government critics, including Mr. Mbowe and the arbitrary suspension of at least two media houses. In addition to the 15 other Chadema party members who were seemingly arrested , albeit briefly in violation of their right to freedom of assembly and association, the authorities in September 2021, also arrested female members of Chadema who were peacefully protesting Mr. Mbowe’s arrest.
As shall be further highlighted in section V(v) below, this is not the first time that Mr. Mbowe has been arrested in relation to the exercise of his fundamental freedoms as a member for the opposition Chadema party. It is submitted that Mr. Mbowe’s July 2021 arrest, detention and prosecution is the latest in a systematic pattern of judicial harassment. His arrest thus violates his right to freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of assembly and the right to fully participate in the running of his country. As the WGAD will be aware, the right to freedom of expression and the ability to freely assemble and associate with others of a likeminded manner, particularly on matters of public interest, is not only a basic individual right but necessary to a free and just society.
(iii) The international norms relating the right to a fair trial have been totally or partially observed, specifically, articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
There have been several violations of Mr. Mbowe’s right to a fair trial as detailed below:
(a) The right to be informed of the reasons for arrest; right to be promptly informed of the charges; and the right to be promptly brought before a court.
Mr. Mbowe was arrested on 21st July 2021. At the time of his arrest, he was not immediately informed of the reason for his arrest. He was detained for five days, well after the legally acceptable period of delay, before he was eventually brought to court on 26th July 2021 and for the first time, he was informed of the charges against him.
Article 9(2) of the ICCPR specifically requires that anyone arrested “shall be informed, at the time of the arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.”38 Article 9(3) of the ICCPR further states that anyone arrested “shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law”. The latter provision is meant to ensure that anyone arrested or detained is entitled to a judicial hearing to determine the lawfulness of his or her detention.
While the exact meaning of “promptly” may vary depending on objective circumstances, the United Nations Human Rights Committee, has explained that delays should not exceed a few days from the time of arrest and that 48 hours is ordinarily sufficient. Any delay longer than 48 hours must remain absolutely exceptional and be justified under the circumstances. The Committee went on to note that longer detention in the custody of law enforcement officials without judicial control unnecessarily increases the risk of ill-treatment.
The African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa (African Commission Guidelines) as well as the Body of Principles have echoed similar guarantees of an accused’s right to be informed of the charges and to be promptly brought before a court.
The Tanzanian authorities were in flagrant violation of Mr. Mbowe’s due process rights in failing to immediately inform his of the reason of his arrest, the failure to produce him before a court of law with 24- hours under Tanzanian laws and 48-hours under regional and internal human rights, he was also not promptly informed of the charges against him
(a) (i) Insufficient details of in the criminal charges
While Mr. Mbowe was eventually informed of the charges against him, the Charge Sheet fails to meet international standards. Article 14 (3) (a) of the ICCPR provides that in the determination of a criminal charge, an accused person shall be entitled to “…be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him”. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has elaborated on this provision to mean that the charges must include “both the law and the alleged general facts on which the charge is based”. The Yugoslavia Tribunal has clarified that where it is alleged that an accused has personally committed a crime, material facts such as the identity of the victim, the time and place of the events and the means by which the acts were committed, have to be set out in detail. The tribunal also clarified that in largescale crimes, and broad crimes, “t is not acceptable for the Prosecution to omit the material aspects of its main allegations in the indictment with the aim of moulding the case against the accused in the course of the trial depending on how the evidence unfolds”.
As is clear from the charge sheet, there is clearly insufficient information on the facts to support the allegations. The charge sheet has a huge geographical (“within Moshi District in Kilimanjaro Region, and at various places within Dar es Salaam, Morogoro and Arusha regions”) and temporal (“ on diverse dates between 1st May 202 and 1 August 2020”) scope. The charge sheet also lacks sufficient details on the criminal acts themselves, simply stating that Mr. Mbowe, alongside other “conspire[d] to blow up fueling stations and other public gatherings”. As such, Mr. Mbowe lacks adequate information about the scope of the case against him, thereby severely undermining his ability to prepare for trial.
The High Court has since ordered the prosecution to amend its charges, so that the allegations reflect that the accused persons intended to advance a political, ideological or religious agenda.
(b) The accused’s right to legal representation
As outlined above, Mr. Mbowe was arrested and detained for five (5) days without access to his legal representatives. His first appearance in court on August 5th, was in the absence of his legal practitioners and without prior consultation. The right to legal representation is one of the key cornerstones of a fair trial and is particularly important in the early stages of one’s arrest. Article 14 of the ICCPR provides everyone facing criminal charges the right to defend one’s self in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing. The United Nations Principles and Guidelines on Access to Legal Aid in Criminal Justice Systems, require that member states “ensure that anyone who is detained, arrested, suspected of, or charged with a criminal offence… is entitled to legal aid at all stages of the criminal justice process.” The African Commission Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa state that an arrested person must not only have the right to legal representation of their choice but the facilities to exercise that right. The fundamental right to legal counsel as well to an accused person’s family is also outlined under Principles 17, 18 and 19 of the Body Principles.
(c) The accused’s right to inform family members of the place of detention.
During Mr. Mbowe’s five-day detention in police custody, he was not afforded an opportunity to notify his family of his arrest and where he was being detained. The African Commission Guidelines state that “[a]nyone who is arrested or detained has the right to inform, or have the authorities notify, their family or friends. The information must include the fact of their arrest or detention and the place the person is kept in custody”. Furthermore, Principle 16 of the Body of Principles provides that “…after each transfer from one place of detention or imprisonment to another, a detained or imprisoned person shall be entitled to notify or to require the competent authority to notify members of his family or other appropriate persons of his choice of his arrest, detention or imprisonment or of the transfer and of the place where he is kept in custody”. It is internationally recognized that “torture is most frequently practiced during incommunicado detention” and “it is in the period immediately following deprivation of liberty that the risk of intimidation and physical ill-treatment is the greatest.” Contact with family members immediately after detention is a fundamental safeguard against torture and other ill-treatment.
(d) Automatic denial of the right to bail
Section 148 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a police officer in charge of a police station or a court before whom an accused person is brought or appears, shall not admit that person to bail if that person is charged with certain crimes including -terrorism offences. This provision thus provides for a blanket denial of bail for certain crimes and as such, Mr. Mbowe is not entitled to bail and he remains in detention pending the finalization of his case. Mr. Mbowe submits that Section 148(5)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the resulting denial of the right to apply for bail is a violation of his due process rights as guaranteed under Article 9 and 10 of the UDHR, Articles 9 and 14 of the ICCPR, and Principles 38 and 39 of the Body of Principles.
Unfortunately, a clear pattern has emerged of Tanzanian authorities deliberately selecting nonbailable offences to charge civil society and political opponents. Those charged with non-bailable offences, regardless of the frivolousness (baselessness) of the allegations, can spend years in pretrial detention. Individuals in Tanzania charged with non-bailable offences have reportedly spent months and even years in detention without trial.59 In the case of Mr. Mbowe, the three (3) other individuals who are his co-accused, were arrested last year in or around October, 2020. They were also charged with terrorism and other crimes and were automatically denied bail. For almost a year their case did not progress to trial, and it is unclear what was the delay, especially given that they were being held in pre-trial detention without the option of bail.
In a report to the Financial Action Task Force, the American Bar Association Center, for Human Rights highlighted how Tanzania’s non-bailable offenses were a violation of regional and international law. The report also raised concern at how the Tanzanian authorities were misusing non-bailable offenses to indefinitely target government critics. In several instances accused persons were held in pre-trial detention for months or even years, while their cases repeatedly postponed while the State carried out investigations. Faced with the possibility of a prolonged period in detention without trial, in several instances, the accused person is coerced into signing a guilty plea and paying a hefty fine.
Article 9(1) ICCPR states that: “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.” Principle 11 of the Body of Principles specifically outlines that a person “shall not be kept in detention without being given an effective opportunity to be heard promptly by a judicial or other authority” and that a detained person and his or her counsel (if any) “shall receive prompt and full communication of any order of detention, together with the reasons therefor.” Principle 11 also empowers a judicial or other authority “to review as appropriate the continuance of detention.” The right to liberty under the African Charter is enshrined in Article 6 thereof. The right stems from the presumption that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty and, as such, the law favors the release of defendants pending adjudication of charges. Deprivation of liberty pending trial is harsh and oppressive, subjects defendants to economic and psychological hardship, interferes with their ability to defend themselves, and, in many instances, deprives their families of support.
Article 9(3) of the ICCPR thus provides that “t shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgement.” Detention in custody of persons awaiting trial should therefore be the exception rather than the rule. Each case must thus be judged on its own merits with courts taking into consideration factors such as (1) the seriousness of the alleged crime (2) whether there is overwhelming evidence against the accused (3) possibility of the accused interfering with witnesses and evidence; and (4) where the accused poses a flight risk or is a danger to the community if granted bail.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee in elaborating on the above, has specified that “detention pending trial must be based on an individualized determination that it is reasonable and necessary taking into account all the circumstances, for such purposes as to prevent flight, interference with witnesses and evidence or the recurrence of crime.” The relevant factors should be specified in law and should not include vague and expansive standards such as “public security.” The Committee has further stated that “pretrial detention should not be mandatory for all defendants charged with a particular crime, without regard to individual circumstances.”
Courts must strive to put conditions that favour the liberty of an accused in order to minimize the risk of an innocent person serving a sentence prior to conviction. As such, courts must examine whether alternatives to pretrial detention, such as bail, electronic bracelets, or other conditions would render detention unnecessary in the particular case. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules) call for the avoidance of pre-trial detention. The rules provide that in cases where pre-trial detention is used, it should be a measure of last resort and should not last longer than is necessary. The African Commission Guidelines echo international principles on the right to bail, providing that “unless there is sufficient evidence that deems it necessary to prevent a person arrested on a criminal charge from fleeing, interfering with witnesses or posing a clear and serious risk to others, States must ensure that they are not kept in custody pending their trial. However, release may be subject to certain conditions or guarantees, including the payment of bail.” In addition, while the Ouagadougou Declaration and Plan of Action on Accelerating Prisons and Penal Reforms in Africa is not binding law, the declaration emphasizes the importance of a criminal justice policy that controls the growth of the prison population and encourages the use of alternatives to imprisonment. One of the main strategies includes detaining persons awaiting trial only as a last resort and for the shortest time possible. As highlighted above, the pre-trial detention of Mr. Mbowe without the option of bail is a violation of his right as an accused to the presumption of innocence. The case of human rights lawyer, Tito Magoti is a strong example of case of a Tanzanian government critic who was held in pre-trial detention for close to a year and his case repeatedly postponed while the prosecution investigated the matter. Similar to Mr. Mbowe’s case, he was automatically denied bail under Section 148(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act. In Magoti’s case, the U.N Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in the case of Tito Magoti specifically stated that “[m]andatory pretrial detention- in [in this case], for an offence that is non-bailable under section 148(50 of the Criminal Procedure Act- is in violation of a State’s obligations under international human rights law”.
It is submitted that Mr. Mbowe’s mandatory pre-trial detention is also a violation of his right to health. In light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization has recommended that states decongest prisons. While he has been charged with a serious offence, regional and international law proscribe that each case should assessed on its own merits. Mr. Mobowe should have had an opportunity to seek his pre-trial release based on factors such as the weight of evidence against him, the seriousness of the crime, his flight risk, as well as his health status and the COVID-19 pandemic.
(v) The individual has been deprived of his or her liberty for reasons of discrimination based on birth; national, ethnic or social origin; language; religion; economic condition; political or other opinion; gender; sexual orientation; or disability or other status which aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human rights?
It is submitted that Mr Mbowe’s arrest is part of a systematic misuse of the criminal justice system to target political opposition. As highlighted in section V (ii) above, opposition members and critics of the government have been victims of arbitrary arrests and in several instances, physical attacks. Mr. Mbowe’s arrest in this case is not the first that he has been arrested in relation to his activities as a member of the opposition party, Chadema. Following the October 2020 elections, Mr. Mbowe was arrested together with several other opposition leaders. The arrests related to the calls by the opposition for protests over the just held elections which were reportedly marred by serious irregularities. On these grounds, the opposition were calling for peaceful protests to demand a rerun of the elections. Hundreds of other opposition supporters were also arrested following the October elections. Following the arrest of Mr. Mbowe and his colleagues, several human rights organizations as well as governments raised concern over the arrests. Mr. Mbowe and the other party leaders were released a day later without charge.
In 2018, Mr. Mbowe and several other members of the Chadema party were arrested in relation to a gathering during a by-election campaign in Kinondoni, Dar es Salaam. They were charged with numerous crimes including incitement to violence, making seditious statements and unlawful assembly. In 2020, Mr Mbowe and five others in the 2018 arrest, were convicted of sedition, sentenced to five months in prison or a fine. At the time of their arrest, other opposition parties in Tanzania highlighted that the arrest of opposition politicians in Tanzania was the “new normal, a fearful nation”. Recently, the Appeal Court reversed their conviction.
In addition to arrests of opposition leaders, the government of Tanzania through suspected state agents, have been accused of physical attacks on opposition members. Several months ahead of the 2020 elections, in June 2020, Mr. Mbowe was brutally attacked by unidentified assailants. He suffered a broken leg and had to be hospitalized. His party, Chadema alleged that it was a politically motivated attack. While the police undertook to investigate the attack, to date, no one has been arrested or held accountable for the incident. The attack against Mr. Mbowe was condemned as “only the latest in a long series of disturbing acts of violence and harassment perpetrated against members of the opposition”.80
As documented by many credible human rights organizations, the government of Tanzania under the authority of former president Magufuli, and now president Saima Suluhu, has exhibited an intolerance for opposition party activities and dissenting views. Through restrictive legislation and policy, arbitrary arrests and physical attacks, the government has cracked down on opposition members. As stated above, the timing of Mr. Mbowe’s arrests, the due process violations thus far, Tanzania’s misuse of its non-bailable offenses and the culture of arrests of critical voices and opposition leaders, highly points to this case being politically motivated.
VI. Indicate internal steps, including domestic remedies, taken especially with the legal and administrative authorities, particularly for the purpose of establishing the detention and, as appropriate, their results or the reasons why such steps or remedies were ineffective or why they were not taken.
Mr. Mbowe’s lawyers are providing him with legal representation and have to date filed a number of applications. First, Mr. Mbowe challenged the jurisdiction of the Economic Crimes Division of the High Court to preside over the matter, arguing that the matter should be referred to the High Court in general. On September 2, 2020, the court rejected this application ruling that the Economic .
Crimes Division had jurisdiction. The second challenge related to the defectiveness of the Charge Sheet. One of the issues raised was that the Charge Sheet and facts outlined did not disclose an offence because the word “terrorism intention” was not defined under Section 4(2) of the Terrorism Act. Another objection was that in counts 1, 3, 4 and 6, the alleged facts failed to disclose the mandatory link connecting the defendants acts to terrorism as defined in the Terrorism Act. While the judge overruled two of the defense’s preliminary objections, the Court acknowledged that the information in the charge did not disclose an act of terrorism as it did not disclose the purpose of advancing either a political, ideological or religious purpose as required by the Terrorism Act. The judge ordered the prosecution to amend the charges against Mr. Mbowe and the other accused persons.
On September 6, 2021, Mr. Mbowe’s lawyers applied for the recusal of the sitting Judge. The request was based on the argument that the judge, despite being presented with arguments in support of the defendants’ preliminary objections, had ruled adversely against them, without taking into consideration some of the key authorities cited. Judge Elinaza Luvanda, agreed with the defense submissions and recused himself. A new judge has since been assigned to the case and a preliminary hearing was held on September 14, 2021.
With regards to Mr. Mbowe’s pre-trial detention, as stated above, due to the automatic denial of bail as proscribed under Section 148(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), Mr. Mbowe may not be released on bail. At present, there is no recourse from the courts on this issue. In 2019, a petitioner challenged before the Tanzanian High Court, the constitutionality of Section 148(5) of the CPA on non-bailable offences. In May 2020, the Court agreed that the entirety of Section 148(5) of the CPA was unconstitutional and that to deny a case-by-case determination of bail is to risk denying a detainee the right to individual liberty and equality before the law . The Court further held that Section was “too broad” and “susceptible to not only abuses, but also arbitrary decisions.” Section 13(6)(a) of Tanzania’s Constitution specifically provides that ‘no person charged with a criminal offense shall be treated as guilty until proved guilty of that offence. Unfortunately, in August of the same year, Tanzania’s Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision, ruling that the CPA’s automatic bail denial mandate is constitutional under domestic law. While the Appeal Court recognized that automatic bail denial limited certain individual liberties, it found such limitations justified in the case of certain serious crimes in order to “[ensure] the availability of the accused during trial and to ensure peace and order to the community”. The decision of the Court of Appeals is final and as such Mr. Mbowe has no recourse within the local courts on the issues of bail. Unless the charges are dropped or his case is tried to completion, he risks being detained for an indefinite period.
VII. Full name, postal and electronic addresses of the person(s) submitting the information (telephone and fax number, if possible).
Oliver Windridge International Counsel oliver.windridge@gmail.com
Date: 15th September 2021
Attachments
Attached to email filing submission
(1) Consent Form (3 pages)
(2) Charge Sheet (4 pages)
(3) Charge Sheet of Co-Defendants (6 pages)
