Advocate challenges DPP for dropping charges

FAUSTINE KAPAMA

IN a surprising move, Arusha-based prominent Advocate Median Mwale and three other appellants have gone to the Court of Appeal, challenging the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)'s decision to drop the 40bn/- fraud and money laundering trial they were facing.

Hearing of their appeal seeking to fault the decision of High Court Judge David Mrango dated October 30, 2017, was scheduled to proceed before a panel last Friday.

However, the hearing was postponed to another session because one member of the panel was in disposal. Apart from Mwale, who runs the JJ Mwale Advocates firm, other appellants in the appeal of its own kind are Boniface Thomas, an employee of CRDB Bank Plc Mapato Branch in Arusha, a prominent Nairobi businessman, Don Bosco Gichana, alias Bob James Onderi and Elias Ndejembi.

In the appeal, the appellants, who have been remanded for about six years now, are opposing the move by the DPP to entered "Nolle Prosequi" certificate to discontinue their prosecution on the case they were facing before the High Court at Arusha.

They have advanced three basic grounds to fault the High Court ruling to allow the DPP's move of dropping earlier charges and later being re-arrested by the police on the same day and subsequently recharged with a total of 44 counts of forgery and money laundering, among others.

According to the appellants, the trial judge erred in law and facts in holding that the DPP prayer to discontinue the criminal charges against them was made bonafide (in good faith or without intention to deceive).

They state that the trial judge erred in law for holding that the DPP was not required to give reasons for withdrawing the charges against them under section 91 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA).

This was in consideration of the principles enumerated under Article 59B (4) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania and the National Prosecutions Services Act that shall be observed by the DPP when exercising his functions.

The appellants further stated that the decision to uphold a Nolle Proisequi entered on October 31, 2017 was procured by the DPP through a misrepresentation that the appellants were not to be rearrested and recharged on the same and, or similar charges.