Arusha. The Tanzania Court of Appeal has quashed death sentences imposed on three people convicted of murdering boda boda rider Aidan Paulo in the Mbeya case ruling.
The court reached its decision after being satisfied that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial was marred by serious procedural irregularities.
In Criminal Appeal No. 415 of 2023, the acquitted appellants are Adamu Sanga, Oscar Mwakapiki and Benjamin Mwasimba, who had challenged a High Court decision of April 28, 2023, which had sentenced them to death.
The judgment was delivered on June 8, 2026, by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Rehema Mkuye, Sam Rumanyika, and Dr Ubena Agatho.
Justice Rumanyika stated that after reviewing the proceedings and arguments from both sides, the court found that there were procedural defects in the conduct of the trial and that the prosecution had failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt
Basis of the appeal
At the High Court, the appellants were charged with murder contrary to Section 196 of the Penal Code, an offence they were alleged to have committed on April 2 2019, at Ituha Relini in Mbeya.
It was alleged that on the night of the incident, the third appellant hired Mr Aidan, now the deceased, from Soweto bus station to an agreed destination, having already communicated with the second appellant.
It was further alleged that the first appellant and another individual had gone ahead to the location to ambush the victim.
At the scene, the victim reportedly stopped to assist a man lying on the ground who appeared unwell.
As he dismounted from his motorcycle, he was stabbed in the abdomen, causing severe bleeding and a ruptured liver.
The appellants were alleged to have taken the motorcycle, a Kinglion model, and abandoned the deceased at the scene.
He was later rescued the following morning by passers-by, including the first prosecution witness.
The appellants were arrested in December 2019. They allegedly confessed to the offence through caution statements, but later denied involvement during the trial, claiming they were coerced into confessing after being tortured at Mbeya Central Police Station.
Nevertheless, the High Court found them guilty and sentenced them to death.
The appeal
Dissatisfied with the conviction, the appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal, challenging the validity of their confessions, the conduct of the trial, and the admissibility of the evidence used against them.
Their lawyers argued that there were serious breaches of the law from the investigation stage through to the trial proceedings.
They submitted that although the appellants were arrested in December 2019, they were not brought to court until May 21, 2020, about five months later, without any satisfactory explanation from the prosecution.
They further argued that after being arraigned, the charges were not read to them for nearly 11 months, during which the case was repeatedly mentioned, virtually without their defence being properly considered.
Another ground of appeal was that during committal proceedings, key prosecution documents and witness statements were not read to the accused as required by law, but were merely shown to them.
The appellants also challenged their caution statements, arguing that they were unlawfully obtained under coercion and torture by police officers.
For its part, the prosecution urged the court to dismiss the appeal, arguing that despite the alleged irregularities, the evidence on record sufficiently linked the appellants to the offence.
The court’s decision
After reviewing the proceedings, hearing submissions from both sides, and analysing the evidence, the Court of Appeal held that the prosecution had failed to prove the murder charge to the required legal standard.
The judges found that the caution statements and confessions relied upon to convict the appellants were obtained in violation of the law, as there was no indication they were made voluntarily, with some recorded outside the legally permitted procedures.
It was further noted that the magistrate who recorded the statement of the third appellant failed to properly investigate claims of physical injury raised by the accused before the confession was taken.
As a result, the Court of Appeal ordered that the confessions be expunged from the record, ruling that they were unreliable.
On another key issue, the court criticised the use of the doctrine of common intention applied by the High Court in convicting the appellants.
The judges observed that the prosecution had alleged a joint plan involving the appellants and another person, Venance, who was described as a key participant in the offence, but was neither arrested nor brought to court to answer the allegations.
According to the Court of Appeal, the failure to prosecute the alleged main accomplice significantly undermined the application of the doctrine of common intention.
The court also found clear violations of the Criminal Procedure Act in the committal process, noting that charge sheets and witness statements were required to be read and explained to the accused, but were instead merely shown to them.
This irregularity, the court held, deprived the appellants of the opportunity to understand the evidence against them and adequately prepare their defence.
The court further held that the delay of more than five months before the appellants were taken to court constituted a violation of their fundamental rights.
Ultimately, the court concluded that there was insufficient evidence remaining to sustain the murder conviction.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions and death sentences imposed by the High Court, and ordered that the appellants be released from custody unless held for other lawful reasons.
