The indictment referenced nine human bones, yet a prosecution witness only testified to the existence of six bones. Photo: Courtesy
By Adonis Byemelwa
Shinyanga: In a landmark ruling, the Court of Appeal in Tabora has overturned the life sentences of three residents of Mmale Village in Uyui District, Tabora, who had been convicted of amputating an albino child's arm.
The trio, who had languished in prison for a decade, were set free on August 22, 2024, after a panel of three justices—Shaban Lila, Patricia Fikirini, and Pantrine Kente—found substantial procedural irregularities that undermined the integrity of the original trial.
The appellate court's decision stemmed from serious lapses in the case, including the unlawful transfer of the case file between magistrates and the failure to present crucial forensic evidence—the human bones allegedly found in the possession of the accused—during the trial.
The case, which originally charged six individuals—Mussa Njile, Elizabeth Masanja, Bahati Kilungu, Mhoja Shija, Biria Masanja, and Regina Kashinje—with attempted murder and possession of human bones, has been mired in controversy since it began.
The prosecution had alleged that on the night of July 19, 2014, in Uyui Village, the accused attempted to kill Nkamba Ezekiel, an albino child, by severing his right arm and fleeing with it.
A year later, on May 21, 2015, the defendants were reportedly found in possession of nine human bones at Maji Hotel in Kahama. The trial court in Tabora heard testimony from 18 witnesses and reviewed 14 exhibits, ultimately acquitting three of the accused—Mhoja Shija, Biria Masanja, and Regina Kashinje—while sentencing the remaining three to severe prison terms. Mussa Njile and Elizabeth Masanja received life sentences, and Bahati Kilungu was sentenced to 15 years in prison.
The three convicted individuals subsequently appealed, challenging their sentences on five grounds, each submitting individual appeals that were later consolidated into a single case. Represented by independent attorney Stella Nyakyi, the appellants argued before the Court of Appeal, with the Republic represented by State Attorney Enosh Kigoryo.
One of the most glaring issues that led to the quashing of the sentences was the unlawful handling of the case file. Attorney Nyakyi pointed out that the case was initially assigned to Senior Resident Magistrate Gladys Barthy by the presiding judge of the High Court’s Tabora Zone.
However, records revealed that the preliminary hearings were conducted by Magistrate Seraphine Nsana, in clear violation of Section 256A (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA). This irregularity alone, the justices concurred, was sufficient to vitiate the proceedings.
Moreover, the appellate court found that the evidence presented during the trial was inconsistent and improperly handled. The indictment referenced nine human bones, yet a prosecution witness only testified to the existence of six bones.
More damning was the fact that these bones were never actually produced in court as exhibits; instead, the prosecution merely submitted a confiscation notice. The justices noted that the prosecution also failed to establish a proper chain of custody for these bones, raising significant doubts about their provenance and authenticity.
Additionally, the justices criticized the use of a witness who was not listed during the committal proceedings, a violation of Sections 246(2) and 289(1) of the CPA. This witness, the 18th in the case, was called to testify about DNA tests conducted on saliva samples taken from the appellants. However, there was no explanation as to why similar samples were not taken from the victim or his mother, a crucial step that could have corroborated the prosecution's case.
In light of these substantial procedural flaws, the justices nullified the entire trial process, set aside the sentences, and ordered the immediate release of the appellants. The court's decision accentuates the critical importance of adhering to legal protocols and evidentiary standards, especially in cases involving severe allegations and potential life sentences.
The case had initially attracted widespread attention due to the brutal nature of the crime and the vulnerability of the victim, an albino child. The prosecution had alleged that the accused were part of a criminal conspiracy to harvest body parts for use in witchcraft rituals, a practice that has been widely condemned both locally and internationally.
Despite the horrific nature of the alleged crime, the justices emphasized that the rule of law must prevail, and the rights of the accused must be safeguarded against unlawful prosecution and conviction. The appellate court’s ruling serves as a potent reminder of the judiciary's role as a guardian of justice, ensuring that legal proceedings are conducted fairly, transparently, and following the law.
The release of the appellants after a decade behind bars has sent shockwaves through the Tanzanian legal landscape, underscoring the critical importance of rigorous adherence to legal standards in criminal prosecutions. This case, marked by the serious procedural errors that led to the overturning of their convictions, serves as a stark reminder of the justice system's responsibility to protect the rights of all individuals, irrespective of the charges they face.
Legal experts in East Africa have pointed to this ruling as a pivotal moment, comparing it to similar cases where convictions were quashed due to flawed trials. For instance, in 2017, the Tanzanian High Court overturned the death sentences of two men in Mwanza who had been convicted of murdering a woman based on weak circumstantial evidence. Similarly, in Kenya, the Court of Appeal in 2019 overturned the life sentence of a man convicted of defilement, citing irregularities in the handling of forensic evidence.
Renowned legal scholar Prof. John Mary Waliggo has noted that such rulings underline the need for continual vigilance in upholding the rule of law. He emphasizes that the integrity of the judicial process must be maintained to prevent miscarriages of justice that could undermine public trust in the legal system.
The implications of this case extend beyond the immediate release of the three individuals; it has reignited the debate on the standards of evidence and due process in the Tanzanian judiciary. As the justice system comes under renewed scrutiny, this ruling is likely to influence future prosecutions, ensuring that the rights of the accused are not trampled in the pursuit of convictions. The decision has set a precedent that could reshape the approach to similar cases, reaffirming the principle that justice must be served with both fairness and accuracy.