Former finance minister Basil Mramba (left) and ex-energy minister for energy David Yona.
What you need to know:
Yona and Mramba who served as Finance and Energy and Minerals ministers respectively between 1995 and 2005 were in July sentenced to serve three years in jail after being convicted of abuse of office and occasioning Sh11.7 billion loss to the government.
Dar es Salaam. The fate of two former cabinet ministers, Basil Mramba and Daniel Yona, who have appealed against a three-year jail sentence will be known today when the High Court decides on their petition.
Judge Projest Rugazia will deliver a judgment after both the prosecution and defence made their final submissions.
Yona and Mramba who served as Finance and Energy and Minerals ministers respectively between 1995 and 2005 were in July sentenced to serve three years in jail after being convicted of abuse of office and occasioning Sh11.7 billion loss to the government.
The case surrounded the controversial hiring of an auditing firm, Alex Stewart Assayers Government Business Corporation.
While the jailed ministers are challenging their conviction and subsequent sentencing, state lawyers have also appealed to challenge some aspects of the conviction of the former ministers and and the acquittal of former permanent secretary in the finance ministery Gray Mgonja who was charged along with the former ministers.
In the appeal,the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) also stated that the trial magistrate erred in law by failing to order the former ministers in addition to custodial sentence, to pay to the government compensation equal to the amount of actual loss incurred.
For their part, the former ministers through their lawyers Peter Swai and Richard Rweyongeza raised five grounds of challenging the conviction and jail sentence, including that the charge sheet which the appellants have been convicted is defective in law.
The lawyers stated that their clients have been convicted based on defective charges.
They further stated that the trial court erred in law and fact by convicting the appellants in absence of any evidence to prove the charges against them.
