Taking of evidence before trial

Our chief of finance is charged with theft of the Company’s money and money laundering. We are told that since a charge against him is economic, only the Corruption and Economic Crime Division of the High Court is competent to try him after he is committed to the High Court for trial or until the Director of Public Prosecution issues a certificate conferring jurisdiction on the committal Court to try the economic case. Our managing director who reported the crime to the Police and made a statement as the complainant is about to leave the country and is not expecting to return soon because his contract, work permit and residence permit are expiring at the end of December 2021 and he is unwilling to renew them. Is there any possibility of taking evidence of the managing director before he leaves the country?
SP, Arusha

Section 252 to 255 of the Criminal Procedure Act guides committal Courts on how to take evidence of a witness who is seriously ill or hurt and not likely to recover or who for any reason may not be available to give evidence at the time of trial. In such a situation, a committal Court may be moved by a prosecutor to take in writing the witness’ statement on oath or affirmation and magistrate shall certify that he has taken accurately the statement of the witness. He shall further certify the reason for taking the statement and the date and place of recording the statement. The statement has to be taken by the magistrate in the presence of the accused and his advocate as well as the prosecutor. The accused or his advocate shall have the right to cross examine the witness and the answers given by the witness shall form part of the statement. If the accused is finally committed to the High Court, the statement shall form part of the proceedings to be transmitted to the High Court. The witness’ statements taken under oath or affirmation is admissible in evidence at the time of trial without further proof whether it is before the High Court or the committal Court if the Director of Public Prosecution finally confers it with jurisdiction to try the economic offence charged.

However, for the High Court to rely on the statement recorded by a committal Court before the hearing begins, there are two conditions be met. The Court receiving the statement must be satisfied that the witness who made the statement is dead or that his attendance cannot be procured without an amount of unreasonable delay, expense or inconvenience. The trial Court can only be so satisfied if the magistrate who took the statement made certification to that effect. Secondly, the certified statement of the witness must show that the accused or his advocate were given time to cross examine the witness on the story he gave before the statement was certified by the magistrate.

If the managing director leaves the country before he gives evidence to the trial Court or without him making a sworn or affirmed statement to the committal Court, the statement he made to the Police during investigation can still be produced under section 34B(2) of the Evidence Act. It is important to note that the statement taken by a magistrate and produced by a prosecution under the Criminal Procedure Act is different from that recorded by the investigator and received by the Court under section 34B(2) of the Evidence Act. Statement received under section 34B(2) of the Evidence Act does not need to be under oath or affirmation. It only needs to contain a declaration for perjury. Secondly the statement made to an investigator and produced under section 34B(2) of the Evidence Act does not contain cross examination thus it has less weight compared to statement made to a magistrate and tested by cross examination.