Tanzania Court of appeal quashes 20-year sentence, orders release of American ‘tourist’

On May 26, 2023, the High Court, Commercial and Economic Crimes Division, sentenced him to 20 years in prison after finding him guilty.

He was charged and convicted contrary to section 15(1)(a) of the Drugs Control and Enforcement Act, Chapter 95, as amended in 2019 by the Drugs Control and Enforcement Authority (DCEA).

This provision was read together with paragraph 23 of the first schedule of sections 57(1) and 60(2) of the Economic and Organised Crime Control and Coordination Act (EOCCA).

The Court of Appeal delivered its decision on March 10, 2026, in a ruling by a panel of judges comprising Augustine Mwarija, Panterine Kente, and Zainab Muruke.

Legal flaw cited

The court found that the High Court had no jurisdiction because the DPP’s consent used to initiate the charges did not specify the correct legal provision alleged to have been breached.

As a result, the Court of Appeal nullified all proceedings in the High Court, quashed the conviction, and set aside the 20-year prison sentence.

Judge Kente explained that the charges were presented as an economic offence under EOCCA, which, under section 26(1) of that law, cannot be initiated without DPP consent.

However, the consent given only referred generally to paragraph 23 of the first schedule of EOCCA, without clearly citing section 15(1)(a) of the DCEA, the statutory provision creating the offence.

“According to established legal principles in previous rulings, DPP consent must directly reference the provision creating the charged offence. Otherwise, the consent is invalid and cannot confer jurisdiction on the court,” said the judge.

The court ruled that, because the charges lacked valid DPP consent, the High Court had no legal authority to hear the case and that all proceedings and the sentence were therefore void from the outset.

The judges ordered the appellant to be released immediately unless held for other lawful reasons.

The main case

It was alleged that police officers and DCEA officials, acting on intelligence that Rayford was involved in drug trafficking and planning to travel from Tanzania to the United States, apprehended him in the departing passengers’ area of the airport.

A search of one of his two pieces of luggage allegedly revealed packets containing heroin.

Following his arrest, the prosecution claimed Rayford admitted during interrogation that the drugs were his and that he intended to transport them from Dar es Salaam to Bologna, Italy.

Rayford, however, denied all charges, insisting that the drugs were not his and that he was not caught with any narcotics in his luggage or on his person.

He also challenged the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence, arguing it could not conclusively prove that he was transporting the drugs.

Despite his defence, the High Court found the prosecution had established the charges to the required legal standard.

The judge accepted testimony that the drugs were found in Rayford’s luggage and noted that he had signed a statement acknowledging the seizure and recognising the items as his.

Appeal

Mr Rayford appealed, challenging the ruling on multiple grounds. During the hearing, the Court of Appeal identified a crucial legal issue concerning the DPP’s consent used to initiate the charges.

Under the law governing economic offences, DPP consent is essential before a case can be heard.

In Mr Rayford’s case, the consent referenced only the provision related to economic offences without specifying the narcotics law provision creating the offence charged.

The judges ruled that this flaw meant the High Court lacked jurisdiction from the outset.

During the appeal, the Republic admitted the flaw in the DPP consent, acknowledging that failure to cite the specific statutory provision rendered the charges invalid and deprived the court of jurisdiction.

The prosecution sought a retrial to address deficiencies in the previous case, but the defence opposed it, arguing that Rayford had already been in custody since 2018 and that a retrial would cause further hardship.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the DPP consent had a significant legal flaw. The judges emphasised that, by law, consent must cite the statutory provision alleged to have been breached to confer jurisdiction.

The absence of a reference to section 15(1)(a) of the DCEA rendered the consent invalid, consistent with prior rulings that improper DPP consent cannot confer authority to hear a case.

Consequently, the Court quashed the High Court proceedings and declined to order a retrial.

The decision on whether Mr Rayford could be charged again rests with the DPP. The court directed his immediate release unless held for other lawful reasons.

Implications

The ruling underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural requirements in prosecuting economic and organised crime cases.

Legal experts note that even serious offences, such as trafficking large quantities of narcotics, must be prosecuted within the framework established by law, including obtaining valid DPP consent.

Failure to comply with these procedural safeguards can result in cases being nullified, as demonstrated in Rayford’s appeal, highlighting the judiciary’s role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that procedural lapses do not compromise justice.

The case also serves as a reminder to the prosecution that meticulous attention to statutory requirements is essential, particularly in complex cross-border crimes, where legal errors can lead to the release of accused individuals despite the severity of the allegations.