JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA: PERUVIAN UNDER HOTTEST MOMENT

By FAUSTINE KAPAMA-Judiciary

THE Court of Appeal has upheld both conviction and the 20-year-imprisonment sentence imposed on Peruvian, Wallenstein Alvares Santillian, for trafficking in 1,420.78 grams of Cocaine Hydrochloride, which are dangerous narcotic drugs.

Justices Ferdinand Wambali, Lugano Mwandambo and Lilian Mashaka ruled against Santillian, the appellant, after dismissing all seven grounds of appeal he had lodged to fault the decision of the High Court.

“We sustain the appellant's conviction and uphold the sentence imposed by the trial court and ultimately find the appeal devoid of merit. In the result, we dismiss the appeal,” the justices declared.

During hearing of the appeal, the counsel for the appellants had contended, among others, that the prosecution’s case was not proved to the required standard, there was broken of chain of custody of the alleged narcotic drugs and there were contradictions as regards to the arrest of his client.

In their judgment delivered in Dar es Salaam recently, the justices of the appeal court pointed out that having analysed the evidence on record and deliberations with regard to the grounds of appeal raised they have no hesitation to state that the prosecution case was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

“We are satisfied that the trial judge properly believed the prosecution witnesses as credible since the appellant's defence did not raise any doubt on his arrest, search and being found in possession of 31 packets which were found to contain a narcotic drug known as cocaine hydrochloride,” they said.

The justices were also satisfied that the oral evidence on record indicates that the chain of custody on seizure, handling, custody, transfer and analysis of the narcotic drugs was not broken and there was no sign that the exhibits could have been tampered with at any stage before tendered in court as evidence.

With regards to the contradiction on the arrest of the appellant, they noted that the circumstances leading to the arrest and search of the appellant could not have necessitated the presence of the search warrant.

The justices were of the settled opinion that the police officer who arrested the appellant properly conducted an emergence search upon his arrival despite the prior information which did not sufficiently disclose all matters pertaining to him after being suspected might have carried something.

According to them, it was in that regard that such police officer first stopped the appellant who carried the bags and directed him to the Anti-Drugs Unit office at Julius Nyerere International Airport (JNIA) where he was searched after an interpreter was found.

“(Such police officer) therefore properly acted under section 42(l)(a) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act by stopping the appellant, searching him and his luggage and seized what was suspected to be in connection of the offence related to trafficking in narcotic drugs,” the justices said.

More importantly, they said, according to the evidence of the interpreter, the appellant was notified that those police officers wanted to search him and he agreed. Besides, the justices said, after the search, the appellant signed the search acknowledging that he was found in possession of the drugs.

The particulars in the information placed at the trial court alleged that on November 16, 2017 at JNIA within Ilala District in Dar es Salaam Region, the appellant trafficked in narcotic drugs, namely cocaine hydrochloride weighing 1,420.78 grams.

Facts show that the appellant arrived at Julius Nyerere International Airport (JNIA) in Dar es Salaam Tanzania on November 16, 2017 from Brazil via Dubai aboard Emirates Airline Flight.

On that particular date, as the police seemed to have some information from an informer on his expected arrival, after the appellant disembarked from the plane, completed immigration and arrival formalities at the JNIA, took his luggage and proceeded to the exit gate.

One Inspector of Police stopped the appellant, introduced himself as a police officer and put him under arrest. However, as there was communication barrier between the two as the appellant spoke Spanish language, such police officer could not inform him the next step after the arrest.

Few minutes later, the Inspector and other police officers managed to get an interpreter, a taxi driver at the airport who was fluent in Spanish language. Through such interpreter, the Inspector told the appellant that they wanted to search him and the bags which he had in his possession.

It was further revealed that after searching the appellant and his luggage, the purple and pink colored bags were found with 15 and 16 packets, respectively suspected to contain narcotic drugs. Following the seizure, the Inspector prepared a seizure certificate, which he signed followed by the appellant.