Agu was convicted and sentenced after changing his plea to guilty two years into his drug trafficking trial
Arusha. The Court of Appeal of Tanzania has quashed a 20-year prison sentence and a fine exceeding Sh343.8 million imposed on a Nigerian national, Okwudili Nnaman Agu, who had been convicted of drug trafficking.
Agu had been sentenced after pleading guilty to trafficking 1,273.69 grammes of heroin valued at more than Sh114.6 million. He was arrested on December 29, 2013, at Julius Nyerere International Airport (JNIA) in Dar es Salaam.
Although he initially denied the charge during the preliminary hearing, Agu later changed his plea and admitted the offence about two years into the trial, leading to his conviction and sentence.
However, in a judgment delivered on December 29, 2025, and later uploaded to the court’s website, a three-judge bench of the Court of Appeal ruled that the guilty plea had not been taken in compliance with legal procedures, rendering the conviction unsafe.
The panel comprised Justices Ferdinand Wambali, Lilian Kairo and Deo Nangela.
The appellate court found that the High Court erred in convicting Agu on the basis of a plea of guilty without properly recording and presenting the facts of the case as required by law.
“The Court is satisfied that the appellant’s plea of guilty was neither clear nor unequivocal, as the facts he was alleged to have admitted were not fully presented and properly recorded in the court proceedings,” Justice Wambali said in the ruling.
He added that the High Court had made a legal error by entering a conviction without ensuring that all mandatory procedures governing a plea of guilty had been strictly followed.
As a result, the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction delivered on November 26, 2021, set aside the sentence and fine, and nullified Agu’s criminal liability arising from that decision.
However, the court declined to order his immediate release. Instead, it directed that the case be remitted to the High Court for continuation of the trial from where it had reached on June 19, 2019.
By that stage, three prosecution witnesses had already testified and five exhibits had been tendered. The court further ordered that Agu remain in remand custody pending the continuation of the trial at the High Court.
Background of the case
Agu had been charged at the High Court with illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs, contrary to Section 16(b) of the Drugs Control and Enforcement Act, Cap 95.
According to the record, he initially pleaded not guilty during the preliminary hearing, and the case proceeded to trial until June 19, 2019, when it was adjourned after three prosecution witnesses testified.
The trial resumed more than two years later, on November 26, 2021, when Agu changed his plea and admitted the charge, leading to his conviction and sentencing.
Grounds of appeal
In his appeal, Agu challenged the conviction, arguing that his plea of guilty was entered without proper understanding of the charge. He maintained that throughout the proceedings he had consistently denied committing the offence.
Justice Wambali noted that the hearing of the appeal had initially been adjourned after the appellant indicated his intention to seek legal representation. He later abandoned that intention and asked the court to determine the appeal and order his acquittal.
One of the key grounds raised was that the court record showed Agu pleaded guilty twice on the same day, but with different words attributed to him.
According to the record, he was first recorded as saying: “It is true. I plead guilty.” Later, he was recorded as stating: “My Lord, I plead guilty to the charge. It is time.”
The appellant argued that the inconsistency in the recorded statements raised doubts about the clarity and voluntariness of the plea, and that the trial judge had wrongly concluded that the plea met the required legal threshold.
He further contended that although the record indicated that the facts were read to him, those facts did not appear in the record of appeal. He also pointed out that only some of the exhibits were produced on the day he pleaded guilty, while others had been tendered earlier during the trial.
As a result, he argued, it was unclear which facts and exhibits he had admitted, making it impossible to conclude that his plea was informed and unequivocal.
To support his arguments, Agu cited several authorities, including Laurent Mpinga v Republic [1983] TLR 166, Kalos Punda v Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 2005 (unreported), and Safari Deemay v Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 269 of 2011.
Position of the respondent
In a rare turn, the respondent supported the appeal, submitting that in the absence of properly recorded facts, the court could not conclude that the appellant had unequivocally admitted the charge.
The State counsel agreed with the appellant’s submissions and urged the Court of Appeal to allow the appeal, quash the conviction and set aside the sentence.
However, instead of ordering Agu’s release, the respondent asked the court to remit the case to the High Court for continuation of the trial from the point it had reached before the plea of guilty was entered.
Court’s findings
After considering submissions from both sides, the Court of Appeal held that it was necessary to examine the proceedings of November 26, 2021, which showed that the appellant was reminded of the charge and then pleaded guilty.
Justice Wambali reiterated the settled legal position that before convicting an accused person on a plea of guilty, a court must be satisfied beyond doubt that the facts presented by the prosecution disclose all the essential elements of the offence and that the accused has admitted them voluntarily and unequivocally.
He emphasised that the charge and all its particulars must be read to the accused, as far as possible in a language he understands, and that all essential elements of the offence must be clearly explained.
“If the accused admits all the essential elements, what he says must be recorded, followed by a formal plea of guilty,” the judge said. Upon reviewing the record, the court found it unclear why the appellant was called upon to plead twice, and why the statements attributed to him differed in each instance. In the circumstances, the court concluded that the plea of guilty was not properly taken and could not form a sound basis for conviction.
The judges accordingly quashed the conviction and sentence imposed on November 26, 2021, and ordered that the case be returned to the High Court for continuation of the trial.
