CASES ON CONFESSIONS IN TANZANIA

CASES ON CONFESSIONS IN TANZANIA

Uganda V Mutahanzo

The accused was indicted for murder. Together with eth deceased, they had been drinking waragi and on their way home engaged in an argument when eth accused asked the deceased to give him some waragi but the deceased refused. During the ensuing scuffle, the accused stabbed the deceased and when apprehended, made a confession and court held that a confession connotes an unequivocal admission of having committed ab act which in law amounts to a crime and at any rate admits the facts which substantially constitute the offence.

Wasswa and anor V Uganda

It was held that a confession made to a police officer under the rank of inspector was inadmissible as contravening section 23 of the evidence Act.

R V Okello

The appellant intended to have sex with a woman and after negotiations agreed and identified a place with good grass. Instead of lying down, the woman who wore a grass necklace instead clung to a tree at which point the accused tried to pull her down and she fell down and died. When he was arrested, he was told by the authorities, "confess and your punishment will be light". He then confessed and the confession was used against him at the trial. On appeal, it was held that the confession was inadmissible because it was made by way of inducement and advantage of a temporal nature offered by a person in authority.

Mwange s/o Njoroge V R

 The appellant was convicted of unlawful possession of home made fire arm. The police officer who interrogated him didn't caution him and kept questioning every fifteen minutes, "you had better think whether you are going to tell me or not." It was held that these words constituted a threat and would render inadmissible any confession got thereafter.

Arikanjero Dau V R

A six year old girl was left by her mother with the appellant and she disappeared. Her body was found the following day in a river. Medical evidence showed that she had been sexually assaulted prior to the death. The appellant was arrested taken to the river and asked by eth police officer to pint out where he had pushed the deceased into the river and he did so. The following day, the police officer said to the accused, the following words, "you are going to tell me what you said yesterday but I am not going to force you to do so." It was held that the above words did not constitute an order or threat to the mind of the appellant as they were tampered by the words that followed and any threat they might have caused to the appellant was dissipated by the words of caution that followed.  

R V Zaveckas

The defendant was charged with theft of a coin box form a telephone both. Before the trail, he asked the police officer, "If I make a statement will you give m bail now?" the police officer replied in eth affirmative and the defendant made a written confession on the basis on which he was later convicted. On whether that amounted to inducement by a person in authority, it was held that it made no difference that the defendant and not the police office had raised the question of bail but the statement was made as a result of an inducement by a person in authority. 

Ibrahim V King

The appellant was charged with murder. At the trial, evidence of an officer in command was admitted that ten to fifteen after the murder he had said to the appellant who was then in custody, "why have you done such a senseless act?" a question to which he replied, "some three or four days, he has been abusing me, without doubt, I killed him". The issue was whether this confession was voluntary. It was held that the confession was voluntary statement in the sense that it was not made in the fear or prejudice or hope of advantage. The law is that court ahs the discretion and it bears the duty to determine whether an influence has been fully removed. Court looks at the circumstances of each case and the nature of the case, the person being threatened to determine whether section 25m will apply. 

Bagaga V Uganda

The appellant appealed against a conviction for murder on grounds that his confession was involuntary. It was contended on his behalf that he had been tortured by the police and that he had been in custody for a long time. It was held that the appellant's confession was voluntary an although he had been beaten prior to his confession, the beating was not connected to the confession since the LDU who arrested him didn't know at the time that the appellant was a suspect in a murder case, he was only arrested for having escaped from prison.  

 

Kasule V Uganda

The accused retracted his confession and it was held that a trial within a trial should have been held to establish the truth within the confession. It is established law that a retracted confession will not normally support a conviction unless it is corroborated by other evidence but the court may do so if it is fully satisfied with the circumstances that the confession is true.

Amos Birunge V Uganda.

It was held that it is established law that when the admissibility of an extra judicial statement is challenged, then the accused must be given a chance to establish by evidence his or her grounds of objection through a rail within a trial. The purpose of a trial within a trial is to decide upon the evidence of both sides whether the confession should be admitted.   

R V Kagwa

The recording officer failed to administer a caution and it was held that three was insufficient compliance with the Evidence (statement to police officers) rules and therefore the statement was inadmissible.

Kato V Uganda

Court held that a retracted confession had to be treated with caution and before founding a conviction on it, the trial court has to be satisfied that the confession was true.

Thiono V R

Court held tat there is no rule that a court can not act on a retracted or repudiated confession unless corroborated in a material particle. What exists is a rule of prudence that a court should be cautious to act on such a confession unless it is corroborated in material particulars.  

Batara V Uganda

In convicting the appellant for murder, the trial judge relied on the statement by the co accused implicating him; the judge treated that evidence as irresistible evidence of guilt. It was held that the confession against the accused is only of a slight evidential value and can only be used to give final assurance to an already strong case.  

Uganda V Ssebuguzi 

It was held that the reason why this evidence is considered evidence of the weakest kind is that it is not only hearsay but it is also evidence of such a nature that the co accused cannot test its worth in cross examination of the maker against him.

John Robert Eyiru V Uganda.

The appellant was convicted of murder. It was held that under section 29, it had to be strictly interpreted because it could in certain circumstances lead to the introduction of a confession which would otherwise be inadmissible. All that could be introduced under this section was such part of the statement as led to the discovery of something and no more.

Birembo V Uganda

The appellants were jointly charged, tried and convicted for the offence of murder. The deceased's body and some money belonging to the deceased were discovered on the information obtained from the appellant. It was held that the information to the police by the appellant was incriminatory but was also information leading to the discovery of the act and was therefore admissible under section 29 notwithstanding that t was made to a police constable.