Tanzania: DPP Loses Appeal On Acquittal of Seven Owners of 457m/ - Timber

By Faustine Kapama

THE Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has lost his appeal against acquittal of seven people, who were charged with...

unlawful possession of forest products, which are 14,258 pieces of timber, valued at over 457m/- , allegedly imported from Mozambique.

Justices Shaban Lila, Gerald Ndika and Barke Sahel ruled in favour of Salum Mohamed, Mashaka Waziri, Benedicto Shio, Jafari Hamadi, Daniford Kaniki, Biseko Makaranga and Azizi Pume, the respondents, after the DPP dismissing the appeal, the appellant, had lodged against the High Court decision.

"We agree with the courts below that the respondents fully accounted for their possession of the timber in issue. This appeal cannot succeed. We dismiss it in its entirety," they declared.

The justices observed that apart from producing their respective documentation that they themselves or their registered businesses were authorised dealers in forest produce, each of the respondents was on course of being issued with.

During hearing of appeal, the appellant had contended that the High Court Judge erred grossly both in law and fact by holding that the charge sheet preferred does not cover facts of the case on the grounds that the Forest Act is designated only for local forest produce and not imported forest produce.

State lawyers argued that the High Court judge erred by holding that the respondents gave better explanation as to the possession of the alleged timber by submitting in court the sample documents without taking into consideration the said documents were not concerned with the matter at hand.

In their judgment, however, the justices of the appeals court noted that in the first place, it is common ground that the respondents were found in possession of the timber in issue be it actual or constructive, which they imported into the country from Mozambique.

The timber was lying in the customs controlled area at Mtambaswala in Nanyumbu District at the time it was seized. To account for their respective possession of the timber, they said, Mohamed, Waziri and Pume were each holding a valid certificate of registration as a forest produce dealer.

While Shio, Hamadi and Makaranga each claimed to be running a duly registered timber business as a sole proprietorship or in partnership with another person.

They tendered in evidence their respective certificates as a forest produce dealer issued in their respective business name or their partner's name.

The respondents were at different times between January 1 and March 20, 2013, separately found in possession of timber at Mtambaswala area within Nanyumbu District in Mtwara Region.

It was alleged that the said possession was not backed up by any licence or certificate issued by Director of Forests.

Quantity and value in bracket of the timber for each were that Mohamed 820 pieces ( 26,240,000/-), Waziri 3,600 pieces (115.2m/-), Shio 2,650 pieces (84.8m/- ), Hamadi 2,327 pieces (74,464,000/-), Kaniki 2,52L pieces (82,272,000/-), Makaranga1,300 pieces (41.6m/- ) and Pume 1,040 pieces (33,280,000/-).

The prosecution had alleged that the documentation the respondents produced as authorization for the importation was invalid; it was issued by District or Regional Forest Officers who had no authority to issue any permits or certificates or licenses.

According to the prosecution, the requisite licenses or certificates could only be issued by the Director of Forestry at the headquarters in Dar es Salaam.

In their respective defences, the respondents admitted being found in possession of the timber imported from Mozambique.

The respondents also averred that they were regular businessmen based in Dar es Salaam and had requisite certificates of registration for dealing in timber business and used to import on strength of documents issued by District and Regional Forest functionaries in Dar es Salaam and Mtwara.

Recalling about the practice and procedure on their past imports, the respondents testified in unison that they were issued with import certificates while the timber so imported was already at the port of entry, in the customs controlled area.

That after the import documentation and timber were inspected by the forest and customs officials, the respondents would upon clearance, pay an inspection service charge and chargeable taxes before being issued with a transit pass and an import certificate.

The High Court Judge was likewise unimpressed that the charge of unlawful possession of forest produce as against each respondent was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

In consequence, he dismissed the consolidated appeal in its entirety against the decision of the lower court and ordered the seized timber to be restored to the respondents subject to payment of taxes as they stood at the time of arrival of the consignments in 2013.