Hello

Your subscription is almost coming to an end. Don’t miss out on the great content on Nation.Africa

Ready to continue your informative journey with us?

Hello

Your premium access has ended, but the best of Nation.Africa is still within reach. Renew now to unlock exclusive stories and in-depth features.

Reclaim your full access. Click below to renew.

Legal wrangle emerges in Sugu case

Mbeya Urban MP Joseph Mbilinyi (centre) and Chadema Southern Highlands Zone secretary Emmanuel Masonga are escorted by police officers out of the Mbeya Resident Magistrates’ Court yesterday after their case was postponed. They are charged with insulting the Head State at a public rally. PHOTO | GODFREY KAHANGO

What you need to know:

  • Mbilinyi and his co-leader are accused of uttering seditious statements against President John Magufuli

Mbeya. A legal wrangle in the case facing the Mbeya Urban MP, Joseph Mbilinyi ‘Sugu’ and Chadema Secretary for the Southern Highlands zone, Emmanuel Masonga, has emerged between state attorneys and defence lawyers about the voice evidence recorded using a tape recorder.

Attempts by State Prosecutor to have the taped evidence admitted by the court was on January 23, met with stern rejection by the defence lawyers.

This transpired after the fifth prosecution witness, Joram Magova, led by chief state attorney, Joseph Pande, alleged that he was the one who recorded voices of Sugu and Masonga they uttered in their meeting held on December 30, last year.

Magova asked the court to admit the device used for recording the voices as the second exhibit presented by the fourth witness, a police officer, Daniel Masanja, in the continued evidence produced in court.

The defence, led by lawyers, Boniface Mwabukusi and Hekima Mwasipu opposed, asking the court to neither admitted the gadget nor hear its contents. They alleged that the witness who produced the device had some interests in the case hence making the evidence lacking legal requirements.

Magistrate Mteite adjourned the case, saying the evidence disputed between state attorneys and defence lawyers was very important and that he will give a ruling on it today, January 24.