IN THE COURT OP APPEAL OP TANZANIA

AT PAR ES SALAAM

( CORAM: KISANGA, J .A ., MFALILA, J .A ., And LUBUVA, J . A . )

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1 9 0 OF 1 9 9 4

B e t w e e n

NURDIN AKASHA................................ ............................... APPELLANT

A n d

THE REPUBLIC............................................................... RESPONDENT

(A p p e a l from th e d e c i s i o n o f t h e H ig h
C o u r t o f T a n za n ia a t Dar e s S a la a m )

(Chua, J .)

dated the 13th day o f J u ly , 1994

in

M i s c e l l a n e o u s E con om ic C r im in a l C ause N o. 10 o f 1 9 9 4

JUDGEMENT OP THE COURT

MFALILA, J .A .: ' ' ,

In th e R e s i d e n t M a g i s t r a t e ' s C o u r t a t D ar e s S alaam , the

a p p e l l a n t N u r d in A kasha was c h a r g e d w i t h three" c o u n t s u n d e r the

E con om ic and O r g a n i z e d C r i m e C o n t r o l A ct 1984. The c h a r g e s

in v o lv e d u n la w fu l im p o rta tio n and p o s s e s s i o n of dangerous drugs

and c o r r u p t tra n sa ctio n s. The d r u g s i n v o l v e d w ere 1 ,0 9 6 ,7 1 9

k ilo g ra m m e s o f M eth aq u a lon e a lia s M apd rax v a l u e d at

Shs. 4 ,9 9 7 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0 /= . The t r i a l R esid en t M a g is tr a te fou n d and

h e ld t h a t the charges in a ll th ree cou n ts had n o t b e e n p r o v e d

beyond rea son a b le d o u b t and a c q u i t t e d the a p p e lla n t w ith an

• \ \
order he b e re le a se d from re m a n d c u s t o d y . B u t he w a s
1 . \ ‘
arrested sbon a fte r le a v in g the c o u r t p r e m is e s and t a k e n to

th e C en tral P o lic e S ta tio n . He w as s e r v e d w i t h a d ete n tio n order.

 2

S in ce th en he h as b een d e t a in e d under the P r e v e n t iv e D eten tion A ct.

F o llo w in g th is d e te n tio n , a habeas corp u s a p p lic a tio n was l o d g e d in

th e H igh C o u r t see k in g the fo llo w in g d ire ctio n s and o r d e r s !

(1 ) T h a t N u rd in Akasha h a v in g been a cq u itte d

by th e Dar e s S a la a m R e s i d e n t M a g i s t r a t e ' s

C ourt (M a tu i, PRM) o n 2 0 /5 /9 4 , the

im m ed iate d e te n tio n of th e sa id N u rd in
A kasha on the sa id 2 0 /5 /9 4 in frin g e d h is

rig h ts as a fre e m a n and th is in frin g e d

th e c o n s t i t u t i o n of the U n ite d R e p u b lic

of T a n z a n ia .

(2 ) That the sa id ille g a lity be re m e d ie d b y

th is h on ou ra b le C ou rt n u l l i f y i n g th e

d e te n tio n of N u rd in A k asha.

(3 ) T h a t N u rd in Akasha be re le a se d im m e d ia te ly .

These w ere th e th ree orders and d i r e c t i o n s co n ta in e d an d s o u g h t

f
in th e a p p lica tio n file d on b e h a l f of th e a p p e lla n t, and t h i s

a p p lica tio n was su p ported by the a ffid a v it of one Shamsa

A b d u l r a h m a n N i r a n who d e s c r i b e d h e rse lf as th e a p p e lla n t* s au n t.

A fter the re s p o n d e n t R ep u b lic had f i l e d th e ir cou n ter a ffid a v it

and a r e p l y th ereto had b e e n f i l e d by the a p p e lla n t, the h ea rin g

of th e a p p lic a tio n was s e t downi But w hat i s c l e a r from the

record of p ro ce e d in g s is th at the n atu re of th e a p p lica tio n took

a co m p le te ly d if f e r e n t tu rn . In stead of p ro ce e d in g on t h e b a s is

of th e a p p lic a tio n b e fo re it, th e C o u r t was m i s l e d in to

c o n s id e r in g ''t h e c o n s titu tio n a lity of the A c t u n d e r w h ich the

a p p e l l a n t was d e t a i n e d . A fter h e a rin g argum ents fro m b o t h sid e s,

th e lea rn ed ju d g e h eld th a t a lth ou g h th e P r e v e n t iv e D ete n tio n A ct

has a num ber o f sh o rtco m in g s i . e . a d e ta in e e is n ot g iv e n the

.... / 3
 3

rig h t to be h ea rd , s till it had s u ffic ie n t sa feg u a rd s to pass th e

test of co n s titu tio n a lity . A cco rd in g ly he h e ld t h a t t h e A c t was

c o n stitu tio n a l and t h a t th erefore the a p p e l l a n t w as v a l i d l y

d e ta in e d under i t . The a p p e lla n t lo d g e d th is ap p ea l co m p la in in g

in the su b sta n tiv e ground th at th e le a rn e d H igh C o u r t J u d g e e r r e d

in law in h old in g th at the P r e v e n t iv e D e te n tio n A c t had s u fficie n t

sa feg u a rd s an d a s such c o n s t i t u t i o n a l .

D u rin g th e h e a rin g of th is a p p e a l, D r. Lamwai l e a r n e d C o u n s e l

who a p p e a r e d f o r the a p p e lla n t, su b m itted fo r c e fu lly on the

co n s titu tio n a lity of the P r e v e n t iv e D eten tion A ct. He a r g u e d th at

th e A ct i s u n co n stitu tio n a l because it la ck e d b a s ic sa feg u a rd s

b efore the p ow ers under it are in v o k ed and t h a t if the d e ta in e e

has a rig h t to make any r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s , th ese are lim ite d to th e

fo rm a litie s an d p r o c e d u r e s not the reasons fo r such d e t e n t io n .

Mr. S e n q w a ji le a rn e d P r in c ip a l S tate A ttorn ey argued to th e

con trary on b e h a l f of th e R e p u b lic.

In ou r v ie w th ese argum ents a r e n e ith e r here nor th ere

because a s we h a v e in d ica te d th e H i g h C o u r t w as m i s l e d an d w e n t

astray. In th e re su lt it w ent o f f course and d e c i d e d an i s s u e

w h ic h was n o t f o r m a l l y b e f o r e it, le a v in g the fo r m a l p r a y e r s in

th e a p p lica tio n unansw ered.

As a lr e a d y in d ica te d , th e a p p lica tio n b e fo re th e H igh C o u r t

was f o r th e issu a n ce of d ire ctio n s in the n atu re of habeas co rp u s

th at:

(l) N u rd in Akasha h a v in g b e e n a cq u itte d by

th e Dar e s S alaam R e s i d e n t M a g i s t r a t e ’ s

C ourt (M a tu i, PRM) o n 2 0 / 5 / 9 4 , the

..«./4
 4

im m ed ia te d e te n tio n cf the sa id N u rd in

Akasha on the sa id 2 0 /5 /9 4 in frin g e d

h is rig h ts as a fre e m a n and th is

in frin g e d the c o n s t i t u t i o n of th e

U n ite d R e p u b lic of T a n z a n ia .

(2 ) The sa id ille g a lity be re m e d ie d by

th is h on ou ra b le C ou rt n u l l i f y i n g the

d e te n tio n o f N u rdin A k a sh a .

(3 ) N u r d i n A k a sh a b e re le a se d im m ed ia tely.

In a ll the th ree prayers asked f o r , none o f them c h a l l e n g e s

th e C o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of th e A c t u n d er w h ich the a p p e l l a n t was

d e ta in e d . They c h a l l e n g e the le g a lity of h is d e te n tio n not because

th e A c t u n d er w h ich th is w as d o n e is u n co n s titu tio n a l, but because

«

such d e t e n t io n was o r d e r e d a fte r the a p p e l l a n t was a cq u itte d by

a court of law and th at th erefore such d e t e n t i o n in frin g e d h is

rig h ts as a fr e e m a n , the r i g h t s w h ich are protected by the

co n stitu tio n . T h i s w as t h e b a s i s of th e a p p lica tio n b e fo re th e

C ourt and th at th erefore because th e d ete n tio n is ille g a l fo r th e

a fo re m e n tio n e d reasons, th e C o u r t was a s k e d to rem edy th e situ a tio n

by n u llify in g th e d e te n tio n order and o r d e r i n g th e im m ed ia te

re le a se of th e a p p e lla n t. The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of th e A ct is

ra ise d fo r th e firs t tim e i n th e re p ly to th e cou n ter a ffid a v it .

T h is p a r t o f th e r e p l y th erefore was j u s t h a n g in g in th e a ir fo r

it w as n o t su p p o rtin g a n y th in g in the o rig in a l a p p lica tio n . In

th e c o u r s e of h is su b m iss io n s in the H igh C o u r t , C ounsel f o r th e

a p p e lla n t asked f o r the f o l l o w i n g p r a y e r s w h ich p la y e d a m a jo r

ro le in m islea d in g the C o u r t:

.../5
 5

(a ) T hat the C o u r t u n d er S e c t i o n 390 (l)(b)

of the CPA make a f i n d i n g th a t th e

a p p lica n t is b e in g ille g a lly and

im p ro p e rly d e ta in e d and o r d e r t h a t he

be set at lib e rty im m ed ia tely.

(b ) That w hoever has the c u s t o d y of the

a p p lica n t be o r d e r e d to produce him

in C ou rt.

(c) That th e C ou rt d e c la r e the P r e v e n t iv e

D e ten tio n A ct u n c o n s tit u tio n a l and

v o id to be stru ck o f f th e statu te book.

It is cle a r th en th a t w h ile prayers in (a ) and (b ) above are

co n ta in e d in and su p ported by the a p p lica tio n b e fo re the C o u r t, th e

prayer in (c) seek in g to have the P r e v e n t iv e D e te n tio n A ct d e c la r e d

u n co n stitu tio n a l is not p art o f th e o rig in a l a p p lica tio n and t h e

a ffid a v it su p p o rtin g it. Indeed, D r . L a m w a i1 s r e p l y in C ourt

co n firm s th is w h en h e s u b m i t t e d :

'•H ow ever we c o n c e d e th at there was a

p re v e n tiv e d e te n tio n order sig n e d on

2 0 /5 /9 4 . We c o n c e d e th a t our a p p e lla n t

was d e t a i n e d , w h a t we a r e not con ce d in g

is the le g a lity of the P r e s i d e n t t o use

h is pow ers under S e c tio n 2 of the

P re v e n tiv e D e te n tion A ct to co u n te ra ct

th e d e cisio n of the C o u r t . "

T h is was a c o r r e c t statem en t o f the issu e b e fo re th e C o u rt

based on the a p p lica tio n b efore it* As a m a tte r o f fa ct th e q u e stio n

of the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of th e A ct b ein g a new i s s u e was r a i s e d by

Mr. N a a li C ou n sel f o r the respondent R e p u b lic. In h is su b m is s io n s .-

in th e H igh C o u r t , he sa id :
. . . ./6
 6

"The cham ber a p p lic a tio n and. t h e a ffid a v it

in s u p p o r t w h ich w ere d raw n u p b y K ashum bugu

advocate and t h e c o u n t e r a ffid a v it draw n up

by m y se lf a ll have c o v e r e d m atters re g a rd in g

th e le g a lity of th e d e te n tio n u n der th e

P re v e n tiv e D eten tion A ct th at:

(1 ) It am ounts to an i n f r i n g e m e n t o f

the b a s ic rig h ts of th e a p p lica n t

(2 ) That th e E x e cu tiv e in te rfere s w ith

the ju d ic ia r y .

These are the m atters at issu e . In r e p ly to

th e cou n ter a ffid a v it draw n up b y D r . L a m w a i,

there is ra ise d a fresh is su e an d t h a t i s the

is s u e of co n stitu tio n a lity . T h i s am ounted

to ta k in g the C o u r t by su rp rise and h e i s

estop p ed from b rin g in g m a tte r s w h ich w ere n o t

in th e a ffid a v it. The C o u r t sh ou ld not

co n sid e r the q u e stio n of c o n s titu tio n a lity

of the P r e v e n t iv e D eten tion A ct. D r. Lamwai

is estop ped from b rin g in g the m atter. T h is

is because it was n o t in the o rig in a l

a ffid a v it of th e a p p lic a n t."

In answ er to th is o b je c tio n , D r. L a mwai t o l d the C o u r t t h a t

in h is s u b m iss io n th e re fe re n ce s to the c o n s t i t u t i o n in the

a p p lica tio n to the e ffe ct t h a t the a p p e lla n t 's d e te n tio n in frin g e d

the c o n s t i t u t i o n of the U n ite d R e p u b lic ra ise d th e issu e of th e

co n s titu tio n a lity of th e P r e v e n t iv e D e ten tio n A c t u n d er w h ich

th e d e t e n t i o n was o r d e r e d . The l e a r n e d ju d g e d id n o t make a n y

ru lin g on th is but in o u r v ie w D r. L am w ai*s r e p l y had no v a l i d i t y .

In th e a p p lica tio n , it is stated th at the d e te n tio n of N u rd in

Akasha o n 2 0 /5 /9 4 in frin g e d h is rig h ts as a fre e m a n and t h i s

..../7
 7

(i.e. the in frin g em en t o f rig h ts ) in frin g e d or w as i n v i o l a t i o n of

th e c o n s t i t u t i o n of th e U n ite d R e p u b lic of T a n z a n ia . The C o u r t w as

th e re fo re asked t o quash t h i s d e te n tio n w h ich in frin g e d the

co n stitu tio n a l rig h ts of the a p p e l l a n t and order h is im m ed ia te

re le a se . The C o u r t w a s b e i n g asked to order the im m ed ia te r e l e a s e

of th e a p p e lla n t not because the A c t u n d e r w h i c h he w a s d e t a i n e d

is u n co n stitu tio n a l, but because the d e te n tio n was o r d e r e d

fo llo w in g h is a cq u itta l by a c o u r t o f la w and t h a t th is v io la te d

h is b a s ic rig h ts to p e r s o n a l fre e d o m under th e c o n s t i t u t i o n . In

o t h e r w o r d s w h a t w as b e i n g c h a lle n g e d by the a p p lic a tio n was n o t

th e c o n s titu tio n a lity of the A ct used to d e ta in the a p p e lla n t, but

th e le g a lity of h is d e te n tio n fo llo w in g an a c q u i t t a l by a court of

la w . It is th e re fo re our task to b rin g the w h ole case b a ck on track

an d d e t e r m i n e th e appeal so le ly on the b a s is of the a p p lica tio n

b e fo re the H igh C o u r t - n a m ely t h a t th e a p p lica tio n in th e H ig h

C o u r t was i n th e n atu re of a habeas c o r p u s .

In support o f h is argum ent th at the P r e v e n tiv e D e ten tio n A ct

was w r o n g l y u s e d a fte r a C ourt o rd er a cq u ittin g th e a p p e lla n t,

C ounsel c it e d th e d e cisio n of th is C ourt in DPP v s . M ehboob A k ber

Hall and O t h e r s CA C r i m i n a l A p p e a l N o. 2 8 /9 2 in w h ich th is C ourt

stated th at th e P r e v e n tiv e D ete n tion A c t was n o t m eant t o su p p lem en t

the C r i m i n a l Law and th at th e tw o sh ou ld n ot be used in tandem as

it w ere. In D r. L a m w a l's v i e w , th is is what the G overnm ent d i d in

th is case, th e y w ere p u rsu in g c rim in a l and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e m easures

A

at the same t i m e . M r. S e n q w a li c o u n t e r e d th is argum ent b y

d is tin g u is h in g th e tw o c a s e s . In h is s u b m iss io n , t h e M ehboob A k b e r

Hai1 case is d i f f e r e n t from th e p resen t case in th at in the M ehboob

C ase tha G overnm ent in v o k e d a d m in is tra tiv e m easures to d e ta in th e

. . . . /^
 9

It was b r o u g h t i n th rou gh th e back door. W hether o r n o t th e

i
P re v e n tiv e D eten tion A ct i s c o n s titu ^ ^ jJ | ^ w ill have to a w a it a
■' t/
re le v a n t o cca sio n .

A c c o r d i n g l y we d i s m i s s the appeal in its e n tire ty .

DATED AT DAR ES SALAAM THIS 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 1995.

R .H . KISANGA

JUSTICE
— i
OF APPEAL
---------------------- ---- ' •

L. M. MFALILA

JUSTICE OF APPEAL

D .Z . LUBUVA
JUSTICE OF APPEAL ,

I ce rtify th at th is is a tru e copy of th e o rig in a l.

( M .^ ^ S H ^ IG A L I )

DEPUTY REGISTRAR