Three granted permission to contest conviction in Tanzania's landmark case
From left: Shose Sinare ,Sioi Solomon and Harry Kitilya. PHOTO | FILE
What you need to know:
- They were accused of committing these offenses between February 2012 and June 2015 in various locations in Dar es Salaam and abroad during the process of facilitating the government to obtain a $550 million loan from Standard Bank in the UK.
Dar es Salaam. In a significant development in the ongoing saga of an economic sabotage case, the Court of Appeal in Dar es Salaam has granted Shose Sinare, Harry Kitilya, and Sioi Solomon permission to appeal their conviction.
This decision comes after the trio was allowed to file an application to the High Court at the Corruption and Economic Crimes Division, aiming to overturn the judgment resulting from their admission of guilt through plea bargaining with the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
The Court of Appeal's ruling, delivered by a panel of three judges led by Augustine Mwarija, on May 23, 2024, follows their appeal against the High Court's dismissal of their application to extend the time to file an application to challenge the guilty verdict.
This move marks a pivotal moment in a case that has seen numerous legal maneuvers and controversies since its inception
They were contesting the High Court's decision to dismiss their application to extend the time to file an application to overturn the guilty verdict, after delaying the filing of the said application.
In its ruling, the Court of Appeal stated that upon reviewing the contested decision, it found that the High Court recognized that the delay in obtaining relevant documents was one of the reasons considered by the court.
It also noted that the High Court acknowledged that the negligence was caused by the court itself, failing to provide them with the relevant documents on time.
Therefore, the Court of Appeal was satisfied that Kitilya and others provided satisfactory reasons for their delay. They explained that they were delayed in filing the application due to the late receipt of crucial documents, including the contested judgment.
The Court of Appeal emphasized that by merely looking at the contested decision, the appellants demonstrated a valid reason for an extension of time, and thus, it found the appellants' reason for an extension of time to be substantial and sufficient to decide the appeal.
"Therefore, we are using our authority under section 4(2) of the Court of Appeal Jurisdiction Act to overturn the decision of the High Court in application number 2 of 2022 related to economic sabotage and we accept the appeal of the appellants," said the Court of Appeal, ordering, "The appellants are given 30 days to file the intended application (to overturn the guilty verdict)."
In the main economic sabotage case number 4 of 2019, Kitilya, Shose, Sioi, and two others, officials of the Ministry of Finance, Bedason Shallanda and Alfred Misana, faced 58 charges.
These charges included leading organized crime, forgery, presenting false documents, deceiving the employer using documents, obtaining money by false pretenses ($6 million), money laundering, and causing the government to lose that amount of money.
They were accused of committing these offenses between February 2012 and June 2015 in various locations in Dar es Salaam and abroad during the process of facilitating the government to obtain a $550 million loan from Standard Bank in the UK.
At that time, Kitilya was the Director of Enterprise Growth Market Advisors Limited (EGMA), which was involved in investment advisory, facilitation services, and funding access, which was alleged to have been used to obtain the funds.
Shose was the Head of Corporate and Investment Banking at Stanbic Bank Tanzania Ltd, and Sioi was the Head of Legal Department and Secretary of the bank.
Shallanda and Missana were employees of the Ministry of Finance responsible for government loans. Shallanda was the Commissioner for Policy Analysis and Missana was the Assistant Commissioner for Debt Management.
On August 25, 2020, they were convicted after admitting guilt through negotiations with the DPP. They were sentenced to pay a fine of Sh1 million each and compensation of Sh1.5 billion as agreed upon after negotiations with the DPP.
Nearly two years after the verdict, on March 30, 2022, Kitilya, Shose, and Sioi filed an application for an extension of time to file an application to overturn the judgment; that is, the guilt, punishment, and court orders.
During the hearing of the application, they claimed they delayed filing the application because they were waiting to be provided with the proceedings of the case they had requested since October 5, 2020.
In its decision issued on August 19, 2022, the High Court agreed with the government's arguments and dismissed the application for an extension of time, stating among other things, that the applicants did not provide reasons to persuade the court to grant them an extension.
In that decision delivered by Judge Immaculata Banzi, the court agreed with the government's arguments presented by Senior State Attorney Christopher Msigwa that the manner of negotiations (with the DPP) did not form part of the court proceedings, except for the agreements submitted to the court.
Since they already had a copy of those agreements they signed, there was no need to wait to get all the case proceedings, including evidence from witnesses who had already testified, to prove they did not accept voluntarily or represent themselves in those negotiations.
Following that decision, they appealed, presenting six reasons to show that the court erred in dismissing their application.
During the hearing of the appeal, their lawyer, Zaharani Sinare, requested and was allowed by the court to withdraw those reasons and submit one, that the High Court erred in its decision by using section 43 (a) of the Limitation Act.
He argued that this section does not apply in criminal cases, while referring the court to its decision in another case regarding that issue, which held that this section does not apply in criminal cases.
Responding to that argument, the leader of the government's legal team, Attorney General's Counsel Zakaria Ndaskoi, although acknowledging that section does not apply in criminal cases, argued that the High Court's decision was not erroneous.
He supported the High Court's decision that the appellants failed to provide satisfactory reasons to persuade the court to grant them an extension of time to file the application to challenge the guilty verdict.
The Court of Appeal, in its decision, emphasized that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply in deciding criminal cases and concluded that by reading the contested decision, the appellants provided a valid reason deserving an extension of time.
