Africa-Press – Tanzania. THE High Court’s Corruption and Economic Crime Division in Dar es Salaam on Friday sentenced drug dealer Ayubu Kiboko and his wife Pilly Kiboko to 20 years’ imprisonment for trafficking in 251.25 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, which are narcotic drugs.
Judge Lilian Mashaka imposed such a sentence against the couple after convicting them of the offence they were charged with by the prosecution. The judge took into account the evidence tendered by both the prosecution and defence counsel.
The judge ruled that the prosecution led by State Attorneys Constantine Kakula, Salimu Msemo and Kandit Nasua sufficiently proved the case against Kiboko and Pilly beyond a reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases.
During trial, the prosecution called six witnesses and produced 16 exhibits to prove the charge, while the accused persons, who were defended by seasoned counsel Majura Magafu had their own defence without calling any independent witnesses to disprove the charge against them.
In the trial, Kiboko and his wife Pilly were charged with trafficking in narcotic drugs. It is alleged that on May 23, 2018 at Tegeta-Nyuki in Kinondoni District in Dar es Salaam, the couple trafficked in heroin hydrochloride, which are narcotic drugs, weighing 251.25 grammes.
Before being sentenced, the prosecution requested the court to punish the accused severely, considering the effects of drugs in society and that the money generated from such illegal business was dirty money and was affecting the country’s economy.
However, the accused pleaded for mercy, considering that they were parents having several dependants, notably children who depended on them and that they were engaging in legal business in generating their incomes. They also submitted that they were first offenders and had been in remand since they were arraigned in 2018.
Presenting final submissions to support their position, the prosecution had asked the court to be guided by four issues to determine the matter, including whether the drugs were found in the house where the spouses were living before their arraignment.
Other issues include whether the chain of custody was broken in handling the drugs, what would be the status of the certificate of seizure indicating the items found in the couple’s house and whether the defence evidence given by the accused persons created doubts on the prosecution’s submission.
It was submitted by the prosecution that the evidence tendered by six witnesses as well as 16 exhibits tendered left no doubts that the drugs, the subject matter of the trial, were seized from the house during a search exercise conducted by officers from Drug Control and Enforcement Authority (DCEA).
Such drugs, according to the state attorneys, were dully identified by prosecution witnesses in court when testifying as the ones retrieved from the house and that the two accused persons supported the prosecution’s case that their house was indeed searched.
As regards the question of chain of custody of handling the drugs, the prosecutors told the court that prosecution witnesses gave clear accounts on how the same were seized, taken to DCEA offices wrapped in front of Kiboko and then taken to the office of the chief government chemist for analysis.
They submitted that all prosecution witnesses also identified in court the drugs after being produced as exhibits and no cross-examination was conducted by the defence counsel to discredit their credibility. As regards the issue of seizure certificate, it was submitted that the same was genuine and was legally prepared.
The prosecutors further told the court that the evidence given by the couple was weak, thus could not at any rate shake the prosecution’s charge and, hence, creating doubts which could be resolved in their favour.
In his submissions, however, defence counsel Magafu asked the court to acquit his clients as there was no iota of evidence produced by the prosecution to prove the fact that the couple jointly committed the offence charged.
According to him, none of the prosecution’s witnesses produced evidence to substantiate that the couple had common intention of committing the offence. He referred to the testimony that DCEA had received intelligence information that the accused persons were dealing in narcotic drugs.
The advocate told the court that in the country’s jurisprudence, unless supported by any other evidence such a testimony remained hearsay, which was not admissible. He further submitted that to establish common intention there must be conspiracy involving the persons involved.
Mr Magafu submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses gave evidence to show the existence of such mission. As regards the chain of custody of the drugs, the advocate told the court that the evidence given indicated such an exhibit was mishandled.
He submitted that although some prosecution witnesses had admitted that there was a register exhibit which indicated the handling of the exhibits, such a register was not produced in court to clear clouds surrounding the matter.
The advocate told the court that the seizure certificate was not a genuine document, as it bore signatures on the first page, which indicated no any drugs were seized in the house, while the second page, which listed the drugs, was not signed by any of the parties involved in the search.
