Dr Wilbrod Peter Slaa, veteran Tanzanian opposition politician and popular critic of the Samia Suluhu Administration, is currently incarcerated at the Keko Prison in Dar es Salaam under circumstances that have yet to be thoroughly investigated, according to prosecutors.
Slaa, 78, faces charges of disseminating false information in violation of Section 16 of the controversial and draconian 2015 Cyber Crimes Act. The incidents leading up to his arrest, arraignment, and subsequent detention—despite the charge being bailable—indicate that his case is politically motivated. Belo, I outline the basis for my assertion.
A prominent concern pertains to the arraignment process taking place prior to the completion of the investigation. Dr Slaa’s case has been subject to multiple adjournments due to the necessity of further investigative proceedings. It is imperative to underscore the significance of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) amendment via The Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendment) No. 1 of 2022, which introduced Section 113A.
The referred provision stipulates that for all offences adjudicated within subordinate courts in Tanzania, the filing of cases shall not occur until the investigation is entirely completed. This amendment is designed to ensure that legal proceedings are predicated upon a comprehensive and thorough examination of the relevant facts.
The fundamental principle of the amendment is that all cases within the jurisdiction of Magistrate Courts must be initiated only after the prosecution has concluded its investigative processes. If the stipulated legal requirements are not adhered to, a properly functioning court would likely deem the charges presented as lacking competence.
READ MORE: Lawyers for Torture Victim Edgar Mwakabela Seek Sh5b in Damages From Tanzanian Authorities
A resolute magistrate would, as a result, proceed to dismiss the charges outright and acquit the accused person. In the instant case, the reluctance to enforce mandatory procedural standards and requirements contributes to perceptions of judicial capture by the executive branch, leading to further concerns that the legal system is being instrumentalised to suppress dissenting voices.
Due process
The decision not to allow bail in cases involving offences that are typically bailable warrants careful consideration of the principles of due process. In the instance of Dr Slaa, although his offence is classified as bailable, the prosecutor submitted a certificate contesting his eligibility for bail on purported safety concerns.
It is noteworthy that Dr Slaa was not granted the opportunity to contest the prosecutor’s motion for the denial of bail. As a result, the presiding magistrate opted to remand him to custody while awaiting the prosecutor’s update, which was likely a request for further adjournments. Such a situation highlights the imperative of safeguarding individuals’ legal rights within the judicial framework.
The court’s failure to allow bail in this instance raises significant concerns regarding the violation of Dr Slaa’s right to liberty. He was not afforded the opportunity to present his defence or challenge the prosecutor’s plea.
Additionally, the Court of Appeal of Tanzania has long established a critical precedent: bail should not be denied solely based on the prosecutor’s filing of a certificate to that effect. It is essential that all parties involved have an opportunity to be heard, allowing the court to make a well-informed and equitable final determination.
READ MORE: Tanzania’s Govt Shutdown the Internet in 2020. Now, We’re Taking It to Court
The aforementioned seminal decision was rendered in the case of the Attorney General versus Jeremiah Mtobesya, which addressed a pivotal matter pertaining to section 148(4) of the CPA. The impugned provision endowed the prosecutors with the discretion to deny an accused person the right to bail without constraint.
Profound implications
This ruling bears profound implications for the preservation of individual rights within the judicial framework, and now Dr Slaa’s fate, as well as a lot of other individuals who languish in jail for bailable offences.
The presiding magistrate in Dr Slaa’s case has once again allowed the prosecutors to not only contravene established laws but also exploit the court system to unjustly pursue an innocent individual. Such incidents erode public confidence in the judiciary.
Furthermore, they illustrate, as previously stated, that the courts appear to operate in alignment with the interests of the prosecutors rather than adhering to the tenets of law and justice.
There is insufficient evidence for the prosecutor to substantiate the claim that allowing Dr Slaa’s bail would pose a danger to himself or the public. At the outset, Dr Slaa does not represent a threat to public safety. However, even if he does, it remains the responsibility of law enforcement agencies to safeguard all citizens, including Dr. Slaa, against potential risks.
The conduct of the prosecutor represents a failure to uphold this fundamental obligation and undermines the essential principles of democratic governance, which are inherently costly and cannot be compromised to accommodate the interests of privileged few, whatever you call them.
Drama at the High Court
The last development is the drama at the High Court. Dr Slaa filed a motion to review his incarceration before the investigation was completed. His lawyers argued that the subordinate court could have dismissed the case altogether and acquitted their client, citing the stipulations outlined in section 113 of the CPA, as discussed herein above.
Although the High Court allowed Dr Slaa’s appeal, his case file was remitted to the subordinate court for bail determination. Yet, the High Court did not specify the time within which Dr Slaa’s bail determination should be given effect.
That notwithstanding, the appeal for review was premised on the filing of the case before the completion of the investigation. It goes without saying, thus, that these gaps in the adjudication of criminal justice showcase how the courts are unserious in guarding rights.
A day after the High Court verdict, Dr Slaa was not brought to court, where the main case was to be heard. His attorneys had hoped that they would move the court to release him on bail. But that was a mere puff. The prosecutor raised an excuse to the effect that there was no transport to have Dr Slaa brought to court, just within the Dar es Salaam vicinity.
READ MORE: Tanzania’s Activists Up in Arms Over Planned ‘Epic Tanzania Tour’ in Ngorongoro
This is, in all respects, a laughable excuse that the Chief Justice would have felt firsthand embarrassment. But it seems to be the new normal; who cares? In totality, these irresponsible occurrences are proof that the judiciary is not respected at all, and the prosecutors can use it to persecute innocent civilians to the heights and magnitude of their preference.
More unfolding shows that the High Court’s decision to have the subordinate court determine Dr Slaa’s bail has been appealed against before the Court of Appeal. One would wonder, what is it that the State is interested in this ordeal that makes them invest resources and energy to that extent? Why contest the bail of a 73-year-old man? What is it, in the public interest, that the state is trying to achieve?
Noteworthy, for those not aware, almost a year ago, Dr Slaa was framed with treasonous charges for critiquing a dodgy port trade deal between Tanzania and a UAE-based logistic company. His ambassadorial privilege was withdrawn by this very same regime without citing reasons leading to such an abrupt turn of events. Tanzanian politics watchers would well blame it on the current regime’s inability to accept criticism.
You would also wonder why remarks said to be ‘false’ trigger the incarceration of a 78-year-old man. What happened to holders of political offices respecting – and being utmost tolerant to – alternative voices?
Solidarity with my old man, Dr Wilbrod Peter Slaa.
Tito Magoti is a lawyer and human rights activist. He’s available at titomagoti@gmail.com or on X as @TitoMagoti. The opinions expressed here are the writer’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of The Chanzo. If you are interested in publishing in this space, please contact our editors at editor@thechanzo.com.
