WILDLEX

The accused persons on 29th day of September 2006 at Namalulu within Engakiriti, Longido District were found by Anti-Poaching Unit in unlawfully possession of one zebra meat without valid permit from the Director of Wildlife. The Unit on the material day received a tip that the accused were illegally hunting.

On or about the 14th day of April, 2006 at Ogutu area within Simanjiro District Manyara Region, the accused persons were found in unlawful possession of zebra property of the Tanzania Government. The accused was found guilty and was therefore convicted.

It was alleged that on 31/01/2013 at Manyara Ranch area in Monduli District, Arusha region, the accused persons were found in unlawful possession of government trophy, to wit, zebra meat. The accused persons were acquitted.

The two accused were convicted of various offences in terms of the Nature Conservation Ordinance 4 of 1975 ranging from illegal hunting of huntable protected and specially protected game (tortoise and oryx) to possession of the said game or their meat. The accused pleaded guilty to certain offences and not guilty to others.

This is an appeal case where the court looked into the procedure taken to try the matter at the lower court. The judges questioned whether the convictions in the trial court were duplicated.

The plaintiff who was arrested for theft of 2 zebra skins, spent 32 days in custody awaiting trial. His case was later withdrawn. He then claimed N$277 200.00 from the defendant for wrongfully and maliciously setting the law in motion by laying a false charge against him.

The accussed was fined a sum of K5000 or 9 months’ simple imprisonment in default of the fine. To review this matter, the court referred to ss 337 and 338 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This court reasoned that there were two kinds of trophies involved that had been placed under one charge sheet.

The court held that the onus is always on the prosecution to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that it is the duty of the trial judicial officer to warn himself of the danger of convicting on the evidence of accomplice witnesses. The court held that the magistrate had failed to make a record of such warning.

The accused were charged with hunting in a game reserve, in contravention of the Fauna Conservation Proclamation, 1961; alternatively, that they were hunting without a licence or permit. In their defence, the accused argued that they did not know they were hunting in a game reserve, and that they had the licences necessary to hunt the zebra.