THE High Court has refused to grant bail to the Director of Tanzania Sorting Company (TANSORT), Archard Kalugendo, who is charged alongside government diamond valuer, Edward Rweyemamu, with occasioning 2.5bn/-loss to the government at Kisutu Resident Magistrate’s Court.
Judge Kulita reached the decision after dismissing the application for bail lodged by Kalugendo.
The judge took into consideration the submissions presented by counsel for both prosecution and defence on the certificate lodged by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to oppose the application.
“I find the DPP’s certificate to object bail against the applicants fulfils all legal requirements for that purpose. That being the case, I hereby dismiss the bail application,” the judge declared.
Kalugendo had petitioned the High Court to grant him bail in the economic trial he is facing.
However, the DPP filed a certificate under Section 36(2) of the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act, objecting the accused to be granted bail and certified that the safety and interests of the Republic will be prejudiced.
In the ruling, however, the judge pointed out that the current position of law is that once the DPP has filed certificate to object bail, the court can no longer inquire into the application to determine whether the applicant can be released on bail, but it should only determine the validity of the DPP’s certificate.
According to the judge, the validity test of the DPP’s certificate is to fulfill certain conditions, including certifying in writing and effect that the safety or interests of the Republic are likely to be prejudiced by granting bail in the case and the certificate must relate to a criminal case either pending trial or pending appeal.
The prosecution, led by State Attorney, Candid Nasua, had submitted that there is no doubt that the DPP’s certificate filed before the court passed the validity test, while defence counsel Francis Makotta had challenged that there is no pending case against his client at the High Court being found incredible.
In his submissions, Mr Makotta also challenged the certificate; that it had been filed to abuse the court process. He also challenged the constitutionality of Section 36 (2) of the Economic and Organised Crime Control Act.
