AfricaPress-Tanzania: THE Court of Appeal has upheld the conviction and part of a sentence imposed on Resident Magistrate Oscar Burugu for corruptly soliciting 5m/- and receiving 2m/-bribe from relatives of accused person to grant him bail in a criminal case he was presiding.
Justices Sivangilwa Mwangesi, Lugano Mwandambo and Mary Levira reached into such a conclusion after dismissing the appeal under which Burugu, the appellant, had lodged to oppose the findings of both trial court and the High Court on the first appeal.
The trial court found sufficient evidence to sustain the three charges the appellant was charged with and convicted and sentenced him to pay a fine of 500,000/- on each count, failing which he was to serve three years’ imprisonment on each count to run concurrently. Burugu paid the fine.
Particulars on the first count alleged that on March 15, 2013, the appellant solicited advantage of 5m/- from the father of an accused person, as an inducement for him to grant bail to his son, Phillipo Changala who was facing a criminal case before Urambo District Court.
In the second count, the prosecution alleged that on March 18, 2013, the appellant corruptly obtained 1m/- from the father of the accused person as part of the 5m/-. The prosecution charged the appellant in the third count that on March 21, 2013, he corruptly obtained 1m/- from a fiancé of Changala.
The justices, in their judgment delivered recently, found no good reason to fault the trial court as well as the first appellate court on their concurrent findings of the appellant’s guilt on the first and third count, as they had no material to doubt the evidence tendered by prosecution witnesses.
“…. like the first appellate court, we are satisfied that (the witness) gave credible evidence that she gave the appellant 1m/- as part of the amount he solicited from (the father of Changala) as an inducement for the grant of bail to (his) son, who was (witness)’s fiancé,” they ruled.
The justices said that concurrent findings by lower courts on the appellant’s guilt in the first count was not successfully assailed to attract their interference and were satisfied the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that he solicited bribe from Changala’s father to facilitate the grant of bail to his son.
They, however, noted that the trial court had failed to properly evaluate the evidence tendered by both prosecution and defence in respect to the second count. The justices further observed that the evidence on the record reveals that Changala’s father testified that he did not give bribe to the appellant.
“We hold that the appeal is devoid of merit except for the second count on which we have held that the conviction was against the weight of evidence. The appellant’s conviction on that count is quashed and sentence set aside. That said, save to extent indicated, the appeal stands dismissed,” the justices said.
Oscar Justinian Burugu, the appellant, was a servant of law serving as Resident Magistrate in Charge at Urambo District Court in Tabora Region. On April 12, 2013 he found himself standing on the dock as an accused person charged with three bribery counts before the Resident Magistrate’s Court at Tabora.
Changala had stood charged with stealing a sum of 120m/-, the property of NMB Bank PLC. Earlier on that day, Changala’s father had an audience with the appellant in his chambers with a view to discussing with him bail for his son.
Such father had some documents with him which he showed to the appellant, indicating that he had a house in Dodoma. However, upon inspection, he was told the documents were inadequate for the purposes of the bail. Moments later, the appellant is alleged to have asked 5m/-for bail purpose.
After pleading not guilty to the charge, the appellant intimated Changala that bail was open subject to fulfillment of conditions, including execution of cash bail bond of 120m/-. The accused could not meet the conditions and was remanded in custody.
Three days later, the father managed to secure two persons who could stand as sureties for his son. Once again he approached the appellant on March 18, 2013 carrying with him documents which the appellant inspected and asked him to deliver to a court clerk.
The father along with another close relative with the accused got opportunity to meet the appellant in his chambers, but rejected the bail documents for lack of photos evidencing the houses. Undaunted, the father and his colleagues approached the appellant seeking clarification on the matter.
It is alleged that the appellant is said to have been utterly disappointed by the father’s failure to live up to his promise to facilitate the grant of bail to his son.
On March 19, 2013, the father sent photos of the houses earmarked to support the bail application, but yet again the appellant rejected them and stuck to his guns, asking him to comply with the earlier instructions of parting with 5m/- to him in exchange for the bail to his son.
Subsequently, the father is said to have been scolded by the appellant when his colleagues had left him with the appellant. The father reported the matter to the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Bureau (the PCCB) for intervention.
