Mwanaharakati Ashindwa Kuishawishi Mahakama ya Rufaa

bagamoyo

JF-Expert Member
Jan 14, 2010
16,605
17,796
27 June 2022

HUMAN RIGHT ACTIVIST SUFFERS DEFEAT OVER DEATH SENTENCE


By FAUSTINE KAPAMA-Judiciary
THE Full Bench of the Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal lodged by human right activist, Advocate Jebra Kambole, challenging the decision of the High Court, which declared the law on death sentence imposed to murder convicts as constitutional.


Justices Stella Mugasha, Mwanaisha Kwariko, Mary Levira, Paul Kihwelo and Abrahaman Mwampashi ruled in favour of the Attorney General, the respondent, after holding that the appeal by the Advocate, the appellant, was devoid of merits.

“There can be no better words to express our view and conclude as we do that, we find no merit in the appeal. Consequently, we dismiss it in its entirety.

However, given the nature of the appeal, we make no order as to costs,” they declared.
The Bench upheld the findings of the High Court Panel comprised Judges Ama Munisi, Elinaza Luvanda and Benhajj Masoud that the issue on constitutionality of death penalty was res judicata, meaning such matter has been adjudicated by a competent court and thus cannot be pursued further by same parties.

In their well researched judgment, the judges of the High Court pointed out that the issue under litigation was decided by the Court of Appeal of Tanzania in 1995 in the case of Republic vs Mbushuu alias Dominic Mnyaroje and Another.

The Bench recalled in their judgment the holding in Mbushuu’s case in which it was held, "Though the death penalty as provided by section 197 of the Penal Code offends Article 13 (6) (d) and (e) of the Constitution, it is not arbitrary, hence a lawful law and it is reasonably necessary and it is thus saved by art 30 (2) of the Constitution; the death penalty is, therefore, not unconstitutional."

They were, therefore satisfied, as the High Court did, that, the constitutionality of death penalty under the impugned provision could not be looked at in isolation of the element of mandatory imposition of the death penalty.
The Justices pointed out that the High Court rightly made the impugned decision aware of the fact that section 197 of the Penal Code has been the subject of litmus test in particular its constitutionality since the decision in Mbushuu’s case.

Such case, they noted, was relied upon by the High Court in the case of Tete Mwamtenga Kafunja, which was also the basis of the decision in the impugned decision.
The Justices were mindful of the fact that the counsel for the appellant argued in their submissions that the Tete Mwantenga's case was not decided on merit and the Mbushuu's case was decided on the basis of constitutionality of death penalty and, therefore, the impugned case was not res judicata.

“In our considered opinion, this argument although attractive, but it would be presumptuous to think that the impugned decision was not res judicata as the counsel for the appellant have tried to make such an enduring impression,” they said.

According to the Justices, it was conspicuously clear that, in the Tete Mwamtenga's case the prayers were the same as in the case subject of the present appeal and that the court rightly found that section 197 of the Penal Code which was subject of the challenge had already been tested in the Mbushuu' case.

Moreover, they noted, the decision in Tete Mwamtenga's case has not been subjected to an appeal to date despite the fact that the counsel in that case was the same counsel in the case subject of the present appeal.

“Thus, to hold that the case under scrutiny was not res judicata, in our view will be erroneous and misleading. We venture to say that, for the foregoing reasons, that concludes our deliberations on the second issue (on res judicata) which is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative,” the justices said.

The appellant, a staunch human right activist and who expressly describes himself as a patriotic and conscious Tanzanian citizen with human rights concern, through the Legal and Human Rights Center lodged a petition before the High Court challenging the mandatory imposition of death penalty.

Advocate Kambole was against section 197 of the Penal Code, which reads, “Any person convicted of murder shall be sentenced to death.” The death sentence in Tanzania is executed by hanging to death.”

The appellant further alleged that the impugned provision takes away the discretion of the court to award alternative or lesser sentence to a convict of murder according to the circumstances of each case. He had moved the court to declare the provision unconstitution on various grounds.
The appellant stated that the law gives rise to the denial of a fair trial because the convicts are not allowed to make any mitigation and also the court is denied the right to make proper analysis and assessments before sentencing the convict thus, it is in violation of Article 13 (6) (a) of Constitution.

He stated that the provision of section 197 of the Penal Code is unconstitutional for offending the provision of Article 13 (6) (a) of the Constitution as it denies the court an opportunity to exercise its discretion in sentencing.
According to him, the punishment is in violation of the right to nondiscrimination as provided under Article 13 (1) of the Constitution, as whilst other convicts are allowed to mitigate, the convicts of murder are not afforded an opportunity for mitigation.

The appellant stated that the punishment is in violation of the right to appeal as provided for under Article 13 (6) (a) of the Constitution, as the convict has no right to appeal against the sentence and violated the right to recognition and respect for dignity under Article 12 (2) of the Constitution.

He stated that the punishment violates the right to protection of human dignity in the criminal process and execution of sentence under Article 13 (6) (d), constitutes inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment for violation of Article 13 (6) (e) and violates the right to life under Article 14 of Constitution.
Source : HUMAN RIGHT ACTIVIST SUFFERS DEFEAT OVER DEATH SENTENCE

 

bagamoyo

JF-Expert Member
Jan 14, 2010
16,605
17,796
Ilipoanzia

Friday July 19 2019

Mahakama Kuu Kanda ya Dar es Salaam yatupa kesi ya kupinga adhabu ya kunyonga​

Mahakama Kuu Kanda ya Dar es Salaam imetupilia mbali kesi ya kikatiba ya kupinga adhabu ya kunyonga kama sharti la lazima kwa washtakiwa wanaotiwa hatia kwa makosa ya mauaji.


Mahakama yatupa kesi ya kupinga adhabu ya kunyonga

Harakati za wakili wa kujitegemea, Jebra Kambole kuleta mabadiliko yenye lengo la kumpa nafuu ya adhabu mshtakiwa anayetiwa hatiani kwa kosa la mauaji zimeshindikana baada ya Mahakama Kuu Dar es Salaam kumkatalia hoja zake katika kesi aliyoifungua iamuru kuwa mtu anayetiwa hatiani kwa kosa hilo apewe nafasi ya kujitetea badala ya kumhukumu kifo moja kwa moja.

Dar es Salaam. Mahakama Kuu Kanda ya Dar es Salaam imetupilia mbali kesi ya kikatiba ya kupinga adhabu ya kunyonga kama sharti la lazima kwa washtakiwa wanaotiwa hatia kwa makosa ya mauaji.

Hukumu ya kesi hiyo imetolea jana Alhamisi Julai 18, 2019 na jopo la majaji watatu; Ama-Isario Munisi, Dk Benhajj Masoud na Elinazer Luvanda kutokana na kutokukubaliana na hoja zilizotolewa na wa mdai katika kesi hiyo.

Kesi hiyo ya kikatiba namba 22 ya mwaka 2018 ilifunguliwa mwaka 2018 na Kituo cha Msaada wa Sheria na Haki za Binadamu (LHRC), kupitia kwa wakili, Jebra Kambole.

Katika kesi hiyo, Kambole alikuwa anapinga kifungu cha 197 cha Kanuni za Adhabu (Penal Code- PC), Sura 16, marekebisho ya mwaka 2002.

Alikuwa akidai kuwa kifungu hicho kinakinzana na katiba ya nchi kwa kuwa kinatoa sharti la lazima la adhabu ya kunyongwa kwa mtu aliyetiwa hatiani kwa kosa la kuua kwa kukusudia.

Kambole alikuwa akiiomba mahakama iamuru kifungu hicho kiondolewe katika sheria za nchi na Serikali kupitia kwa Mwanasheria Mkuu wake (AG) kuwasilisha marekebisho ya masharti ya kifungu hicho na kuandaa mwongozo wa utoaji adhabu mbadala.

Pia, alikuwa anaiomba mahakama iamuru watu ambao tayari wameshatiwa hatiani kwa makosa ya mauaji sharti waitwe tena kwa ajili ya kuadhibiwa upya na kupewa nafasi ya kufika mbele ya Mahakama Kuu na ya kujitetea (mitigation) kabla ya kupewa adhabu mpya.

Katika hukumu yake iliyosomwa na Jaji Munisi jana imesema kifungu hicho alichokuwa akikipinga Kambole hakikinzani na katiba.

Jaji Munisi amesema kuwa suala hilo lilikwishaamuriwa na Mahakama ya Rufani na kuweka msimamo katika suala la adhabu ya kifo.

Amesema kanuni za kisheria za kufuata maamuzi, uamuzi huo wa Mahakama ya Rufani unawafunga wao majaji wa Mahakama Kuu.

Akizungumzia hukumu hiyo, wakili aliyekuwa akimwakilisha Kambole katika kesi hiyo, Fulgence Massawe kutoka LHRC, amelieleza Mwananchi leo Ijumaa Julai, 19,2019 kuwa jambo zuri katika hukumu ni kuwa mahakama hiyo imetoa nafasi kwa upande ambao haukuridhia kuomba mapitio ya hukumu hiyo Mahakama ya rufani.

“Kwa hiyo kwa sasa tunafuatilia nakala ya hukumu kwa ajili ya kufanya mchakato mwingine wa hatua zaidi za kisheria,” amesema Massawe.

Kwa mujibu wa hati ya madai, kiapo na hoja alizoziwasilisha mahakamani, Kambole alikuwa akidai kuwa masharti ya lazima ya adhabu ya kifo yanakinzana na Katiba kwa kukiuka haki ya kutokubaguliwa kama inavyotolewa katika Ibara ya 13 (1) ya katiba.

Amebainisha kuwa katiba ya mwaka 1977 na marekebisho yake, hutoa haki ya kuishi na haki ya ulinzi sawa chini ya sheria, lakini masharti ya kifungu hicho humnyima haki hizo mtu aliyetiwa hatiani kwa makosa hayo.
Amefafanua kuwa kifungu hicho huondoa usawa katika mashtaka kwani mtu aliyetiwa hatiani kwa kosa hilo haruhusiwi kujitetea dhidi ya adhabu, kama ilivyo kwa washtakiwa wa makosa mengine yasiyo ya mauaji, ambao hujitetea ili mahakama iwapunguzie adhabu.

Pia, alikuwa akidai kuwa mtu anapotiwa hatini kwa makosa ya mauaji naye ana haki kusikilizwa kwa usawa utetezi wake kuhusu kiwango cha adhabu na haki ya kukata rufaa dhidi ya hatia na adhabu anayopewa kama Ibara ya 13(6) (a) ya Katiba inavyoelekeza.

Kambole ambaye alijitambulisha kama raia wa Tanzania mzalendo mwenye kutambua haki za binadamu, alikuwa anadai kuwa mazingira yanayosababisha makosa ya mauaji hutofautiana kati ya mtu mmoja na mwingine au tukio moja na jingine.

Alikuwa akidai kuwa mahakama hiyo ina mamlaka ya uchaguzi wa kutoa adhabu kulingana na mazingira ya kesi, lakini kifungu hicho kinaiondolea haki yake ya uchambuzi sahihi na tathmini kabla ya kutoa adhabu.
 

Pascal Mayalla

Platinum Member
Sep 22, 2008
43,614
95,550
Ilipoanzia

Friday July 19 2019

Mahakama Kuu Kanda ya Dar es Salaam yatupa kesi ya kupinga adhabu ya kunyonga​

Mahakama Kuu Kanda ya Dar es Salaam imetupilia mbali kesi ya kikatiba ya kupinga adhabu ya kunyonga kama sharti la lazima kwa washtakiwa wanaotiwa hatia kwa makosa ya mauaji.


Mahakama yatupa kesi ya kupinga adhabu ya kunyonga

Harakati za wakili wa kujitegemea, Jebra Kambole kuleta mabadiliko yenye lengo la kumpa nafuu ya adhabu mshtakiwa anayetiwa hatiani kwa kosa la mauaji zimeshindikana baada ya Mahakama Kuu Dar es Salaam kumkatalia hoja zake katika kesi aliyoifungua iamuru kuwa mtu anayetiwa hatiani kwa kosa hilo apewe nafasi ya kujitetea badala ya kumhukumu kifo moja kwa moja.

Dar es Salaam. Mahakama Kuu Kanda ya Dar es Salaam imetupilia mbali kesi ya kikatiba ya kupinga adhabu ya kunyonga kama sharti la lazima kwa washtakiwa wanaotiwa hatia kwa makosa ya mauaji.

Hukumu ya kesi hiyo imetolea jana Alhamisi Julai 18, 2019 na jopo la majaji watatu; Ama-Isario Munisi, Dk Benhajj Masoud na Elinazer Luvanda kutokana na kutokukubaliana na hoja zilizotolewa na wa mdai katika kesi hiyo.

Kesi hiyo ya kikatiba namba 22 ya mwaka 2018 ilifunguliwa mwaka 2018 na Kituo cha Msaada wa Sheria na Haki za Binadamu (LHRC), kupitia kwa wakili, Jebra Kambole.

Katika kesi hiyo, Kambole alikuwa anapinga kifungu cha 197 cha Kanuni za Adhabu (Penal Code- PC), Sura 16, marekebisho ya mwaka 2002.

Alikuwa akidai kuwa kifungu hicho kinakinzana na katiba ya nchi kwa kuwa kinatoa sharti la lazima la adhabu ya kunyongwa kwa mtu aliyetiwa hatiani kwa kosa la kuua kwa kukusudia.

Kambole alikuwa akiiomba mahakama iamuru kifungu hicho kiondolewe katika sheria za nchi na Serikali kupitia kwa Mwanasheria Mkuu wake (AG) kuwasilisha marekebisho ya masharti ya kifungu hicho na kuandaa mwongozo wa utoaji adhabu mbadala.

Pia, alikuwa anaiomba mahakama iamuru watu ambao tayari wameshatiwa hatiani kwa makosa ya mauaji sharti waitwe tena kwa ajili ya kuadhibiwa upya na kupewa nafasi ya kufika mbele ya Mahakama Kuu na ya kujitetea (mitigation) kabla ya kupewa adhabu mpya.

Katika hukumu yake iliyosomwa na Jaji Munisi jana imesema kifungu hicho alichokuwa akikipinga Kambole hakikinzani na katiba.

Jaji Munisi amesema kuwa suala hilo lilikwishaamuriwa na Mahakama ya Rufani na kuweka msimamo katika suala la adhabu ya kifo.

Amesema kanuni za kisheria za kufuata maamuzi, uamuzi huo wa Mahakama ya Rufani unawafunga wao majaji wa Mahakama Kuu.

Akizungumzia hukumu hiyo, wakili aliyekuwa akimwakilisha Kambole katika kesi hiyo, Fulgence Massawe kutoka LHRC, amelieleza Mwananchi leo Ijumaa Julai, 19,2019 kuwa jambo zuri katika hukumu ni kuwa mahakama hiyo imetoa nafasi kwa upande ambao haukuridhia kuomba mapitio ya hukumu hiyo Mahakama ya rufani.

“Kwa hiyo kwa sasa tunafuatilia nakala ya hukumu kwa ajili ya kufanya mchakato mwingine wa hatua zaidi za kisheria,” amesema Massawe.

Kwa mujibu wa hati ya madai, kiapo na hoja alizoziwasilisha mahakamani, Kambole alikuwa akidai kuwa masharti ya lazima ya adhabu ya kifo yanakinzana na Katiba kwa kukiuka haki ya kutokubaguliwa kama inavyotolewa katika Ibara ya 13 (1) ya katiba.

Amebainisha kuwa katiba ya mwaka 1977 na marekebisho yake, hutoa haki ya kuishi na haki ya ulinzi sawa chini ya sheria, lakini masharti ya kifungu hicho humnyima haki hizo mtu aliyetiwa hatiani kwa makosa hayo.
Amefafanua kuwa kifungu hicho huondoa usawa katika mashtaka kwani mtu aliyetiwa hatiani kwa kosa hilo haruhusiwi kujitetea dhidi ya adhabu, kama ilivyo kwa washtakiwa wa makosa mengine yasiyo ya mauaji, ambao hujitetea ili mahakama iwapunguzie adhabu.

Pia, alikuwa akidai kuwa mtu anapotiwa hatini kwa makosa ya mauaji naye ana haki kusikilizwa kwa usawa utetezi wake kuhusu kiwango cha adhabu na haki ya kukata rufaa dhidi ya hatia na adhabu anayopewa kama Ibara ya 13(6) (a) ya Katiba inavyoelekeza.

Kambole ambaye alijitambulisha kama raia wa Tanzania mzalendo mwenye kutambua haki za binadamu, alikuwa anadai kuwa mazingira yanayosababisha makosa ya mauaji hutofautiana kati ya mtu mmoja na mwingine au tukio moja na jingine.

Alikuwa akidai kuwa mahakama hiyo ina mamlaka ya uchaguzi wa kutoa adhabu kulingana na mazingira ya kesi, lakini kifungu hicho kinaiondolea haki yake ya uchambuzi sahihi na tathmini kabla ya kutoa adhabu.
Thanks for this
P
 

Toa taarifa ya maudhui yasiyofaa!

Kuna taarifa umeiona humu JamiiForums na haifai kubaki mtandaoni?
Fanya hivi...

Umesahau Password au akaunti yako?

Unapata ugumu kuikumbuka akaunti yako? Unakwama kuanzisha akaunti?
Contact us

2 Reactions
Reply
Top Bottom