Q&A – 2 August 2021

Consuming alcohol during lunch break

I am employed by a very mean company as an accounts clerk. During lunch, which is my very own time, I went to a restaurant and had a couple of beers so that I could continue working even more effectively. The beers did not make me intoxicated and I timely went back to work only to be accused by my boss of having had alcohol whilst at work. I have now been subjected to a disciplinary process and was dismissed from employment the same afternoon. Is it an offence to drink alcohol during lunch break? Is this decision of the employer fair? Please don’t disappoint me with an answer that sides with the employer.
MW, Musoma

We are unable to comment on the ‘meanness’ or not of your employer. With respect, your statement that you had beers to be able to work more effectively is also hard to understand. And our response will certainly disappoint you as it is based on the law and not taking any sides.

Regulation 13(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health (General Administrative) Rules, 2015 prohibits employees from consuming intoxicating liquor whilst on duty. It doesn’t matter that the employee is not drunk or unable to work or not. It is totally prohibited to drink intoxicating liquor like beer during working hours if the employee is still on duty. Under the Regulations, the employer is not allowed even to allow an employee who appears to be under influence of alcohol to enter or remain at a workplace. Even merely having in possession intoxicating liquor at a workplace is prohibited by the Regulations.

The Employment and Labour Relations (Code of Good Practice) Rules, 2007 lists the offence of consuming alcohol whilst on duty or being under influence of alcohol during working hours as one of the offences which is punishable by termination even if the employee committed such offence only once. It is not a defence that the employee took alcohol during lunch break.

NHIF scope for children born out of wedlock

I am a public servant working for one of the government agencies in the Head Office and have been a member of the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) for 5 years now. I have a child born out of wedlock who is 6 years old. Can I enroll this child under my NHIF insurance cover?
JH, Dodoma

The scope and qualification for enrollment of children under the National Health Insurance Fund is stipulated under the National Health Insurance Fund Act [Cap. 395 R.E 2015] and the National Health Insurance Fund Regulations, 2002 as amended by Government Notice No.11 of 2010.

The NHIF Act and its regulations do not discriminate children born out of wedlock. Members of NHIF are covered with their spouses and children and/or dependents up to four irrespective of whether the child enrolled by NHIF member is born within or out of wedlock. Section 3 of the Act gives a very broad definition of a child that covers a child born out of wedlock and any child to whom a member stands in loco parentis who has not attained the age of 18 years. Therefore, disqualification for enrolment as a child under NHIF insurance cover is the age of the child and not the existence or non-existence of the lawful marriage between the parents of the child.

The second limitation is the number of children or dependents who are already registered with NHIF. The law limits the number of the children and/or dependents one member can enroll under his name to four. If a member of the Fund has already enrolled 4 children and/or dependents, she/he cannot enroll another child or dependent whether the additional child is born within or out of wedlock unless the member seeks and obtains leave of the Board of NHIF which has power to waive the conditions set under the NHIF Act.

To conclude, if you do not have more than 4 dependents registered with NHIF, this child of yours is eligible for registration.

Admissibility of electronic evidence

While driving with my friend we were stopped by a traffic police. He claimed that my friend who was driving breached the traffic rules but my friend denied this. They started arguing and I recorded the conversation between them because the police was forcing my friend to admit the breach of traffic rules. Is it lawful to tape record or video record a conversation between a traffic police and driver by using a smart phone or other electronic devices? Can such video recording or tape recording be admitted by the Court as evidence?
KJ, Dar

There is no law which prohibits recording a conversation between a traffic police and a driver. The admissibility of electronic evidence is governed by the Electronic Transactions Act, 2015. Under section 18 of the Electronic Transaction Act, all what is needs to be proved in order to have the electronic evidence admitted in Court as exhibit is the reliability of the electronic evidence regarding the way the recording was taken and how it was kept until it was brought to Court as evidence. The witness who seeks to produce electronic evidence must first lead evidence that rules out the possibility of manipulation of the electronic evidence before seeking to tender it. Before seeking to tender the electronic evidence, the witness should satisfy the Court by evidence that the electronic evidence sought to be tendered is authentic. This is done by proving the mechanical working condition of the device at the time of recording, how the recording was done, by whom it was done and stored until the evidence was produced in Court. If the electronic record was transformed into secondary media like flash, the mode of transformation into secondary media should also be proved.