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.
No comments:
Post a Comment