Arusha. The High Court of Tanzania Corruption and Economic Crimes Division has dismissed an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) seeking confiscation of assets allegedly owned by Mr Samwel Emmanuel, who is serving a life sentence after being convicted of drug trafficking.
The DPP had asked the court to confiscate several plots allegedly linked to Mr Emmanuel, including one in Shungubweni Village, Mkuranga District, reportedly purchased for Sh200,000.
Other properties included an unsurveyed plot measuring 89 square metres allegedly bought for Sh400,000, another measuring 339 square metres valued at Sh437,000, and a separate 310-square-metre plot reportedly acquired for Sh400,000.
Two additional plots allegedly bought for Sh300,000 each were also listed in the application.
The prosecution also sought any other orders the court deemed fit. In a supporting affidavit, the State argued that all the properties had been acquired using proceeds derived from illegal drug trafficking activities.
The ruling was delivered on Monday, May 11, 2026, by Judge Sedekia Kisanya in Economic Crime Application No. 26918 of 2025 filed by the DPP against Mr Emmanuel.
A copy of the decision has since been uploaded to the Judiciary website.
Judge Kisanya ruled that although Tanzania has strict laws targeting proceeds of crime, confiscation orders cannot be issued without credible evidence directly linking the assets to criminal activities and free from major inconsistencies.
Background
In the application, the government, through the DPP, instituted proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA), claiming that several plots in Shungubweni Village, Mkuranga District, Coast Region, had been purchased using money obtained through drug trafficking.
The state sought confiscation of the unsurveyed plots and other assets allegedly owned by Mr Emmanuel so they could become property of the government of the United Republic of Tanzania under existing laws governing proceeds of crime.
The prosecution argued that Mr Emmanuel had been convicted in Economic Crime Case No. 24327 of 2024 and sentenced on December 13, 2024.
Following that conviction, the DPP filed the confiscation application on November 10, 2025, arguing that the properties had been acquired using proceeds generated through drug trafficking operations.
According to the prosecution, investigations by the Drug Control and Enforcement Authority (DCEA) established that Mr Emmanuel worked closely with businessman Salehe Baselman, who was allegedly involved in international drug trafficking operations.
The government further argued that Mr Emmanuel had no legitimate source of income or lawful business capable of generating enough money to acquire the listed properties.
Through an affidavit, investigators claimed Mr Emmanuel admitted in his statement that he had received drugs from Mr Baselman for storage, distribution and sale as part of narcotics trafficking activities.
The prosecution also relied on Section 53(4) of the DCEA Act, which creates a legal presumption that any property acquired within 10 years before a suspect’s arrest for drug trafficking may be treated as tainted property unless proven otherwise.
However, the respondent strongly opposed the application, arguing that the assets had been acquired through lawful income generated from business and livestock keeping activities conducted over several years.
The defence said Mr Emmanuel had been engaged in cattle keeping in Bukoba, alongside agricultural and livestock projects that generated sufficient lawful income to acquire the properties listed in the application.
It was also argued that some of the properties had been jointly purchased with his wife, a businesswoman with the financial capacity to contribute towards their acquisition.
His lawyer challenged the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence, arguing that several claims contained in the investigator’s affidavit were unsupported by exhibits presented before the court during the hearing.
Court ruling
In his ruling, Judge Kisanya said the central issue was whether the applicant had discharged the burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the properties targeted for confiscation were tainted assets under the law.
He noted that the law recognises tainted property as including proceeds derived directly or indirectly from serious crimes such as drug trafficking.
However, before a confiscation order can be issued, the prosecution must present credible evidence establishing a direct connection between the property and criminal proceeds.
The court said that after examining warning statements submitted as exhibits, it found that they did not correspond with allegations contained in the investigator’s affidavit.
According to the judge, one paragraph of the affidavit alleged that Mr Emmanuel admitted receiving heroin from Mr Baselman for storage and sale.
However, after reviewing the warning statement, the court found that no such admission had been made.
Instead, Mr Emmanuel stated that his relationship with Mr Baselman involved assisting him to acquire plots and supervise construction works.
The court further found that in another statement, Mr Emmanuel, expressly stated that he was unaware Mr Baselman was involved in drug trafficking activities.
Judge Kisanya ruled that the inconsistencies meant the government’s affidavit contradicted the primary evidence presented before the court.
Referring to Court of Appeal decisions on affidavits containing false or misleading information, he said the court could not rely on such evidence in making major decisions such as confiscating a person’s assets.
The judge stated that an affidavit containing inaccurate information loses credibility and cannot form a safe basis for determining rights in confiscation proceedings.
He further ruled that the legal presumption allowing assets acquired within 10 years before arrest to be treated as proceeds of drug trafficking could not apply in the absence of credible supporting evidence.
For those reasons, the court dismissed the government’s application seeking confiscation of the assets.
The ruling further stressed that although Tanzanian law grants the state powers to confiscate assets derived from criminal activities, such powers cannot be exercised on the basis of general allegations unsupported by sufficient proof before the court.
