Possession of unexplained property 

My uncle, who is a primary school teacher at a government-owned school, is being prosecuted for possession of unexplained property under the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Act. The Court is demanding that he explain his wealth, as it does not align with his current position. He insists he is innocent. I wonder how this aligns with the laws of evidence in criminal matters, since I thought the prosecution must always prove guilt. Please explain this to me.

QJ, Tabora

Your question concerns an important legal principle. Generally, in criminal law, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution, which must demonstrate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, under the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Act, Cap. 329 [R. E. 2023] (PCCA), possession of property disproportionate to lawful income can lead to prosecution. Section 27 of the PCCA provides that a public official commits an offence if they live beyond their lawful means or own property disproportionate to their legitimate income, unless they can satisfactorily explain to the Court how they acquired such wealth or maintained that lifestyle. Furthermore, if the court finds that property is held by someone closely connected to the accused (such as a relative, associate, or trustee), or was received as a gift from the accused, it will presume that the property is under the accused’s control unless proven otherwise.

Once the prosecution proves that the property is unexplained, there is a presumption that it was obtained unlawfully. The burden then shifts to the accused to provide a lawful explanation. This is known as a reverse burden of proof. Courts have upheld such provisions because corruption cases often involve hidden transactions. Nonetheless, the accused retains constitutional protections that, if he can establish legitimate sources of income, enable him to rebut the presumption. Courts have clarified that they recognise and acknowledge the prosecution’s duty to establish that there is a case to answer. However, while the prosecution initiates the case, the law permits evidentiary burdens to shift to the accused in specific corruption contexts so as to enhance enforcement. Consult a lawyer for further guidance.