Trafficking narcotics
Two years ago, police officers raided my brother’s house in a village after an informer told them he was hiding bhangi. They found two sacks of dried leaves inside. He was later charged with trafficking in narcotic drugs and sentenced to thirty years in prison. What confuses our family is that my brother has no vehicle or motorbike, and the police never claimed he was selling or exporting the drugs, only that they found them at his house. He kept saying he was innocent and that the charge did not make sense because ‘trafficking’ means transporting. My brother was convicted of drug trafficking, but he never transported anything. Was his conviction justified? Please guide me.
EM, Pwani
We are sorry to hear about your brother’s story. This is a criminal case, and sometimes it may be difficult to comment without knowing all the facts. Nonetheless, we will comment based on what you have stated. Under section 2 of the Drug Control and Enforcement Act, Cap. 95 [R.E. 2023] trafficking means the importation, exportation, buying, sale, giving, supplying, storing, possession, production, manufacturing, conveyance, delivery or distribution, by any person of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, precursor chemicals, substances with drug related effects and substances used in the process of manufacturing drugs any substance represented or held out by that person to be a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or making of any offer. By saying the accused was ‘found trafficking,’ the charge should explain that the accused’s action fell within the scope of the definition of trafficking and where and when the same occurred.
In a recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania concerning trafficking, the Court emphasised that in trafficking cases, the charge must specify how the accused trafficked narcotics, whether by storing, possessing, selling, transporting, producing, or distributing, as required in the Drug Control and Enforcement Act. The Court further reaffirmed that a charge lacking particulars of the mode of trafficking is incurably defective and renders the trial a nullity. This case aligns with the principle that in criminal law, doubt must always be resolved in favour of the accused, and a person cannot be convicted on a vague or incomplete charge.
According to section 135 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Cap. 20 [R.E. 2023], every charge must include particulars giving reasonable information as to the nature of the offence. If the charge does not state what exactly the accused did wrong, it is incurably defective. In your brother’s situation, the fact that he has no vehicle or motorbike is not relevant. However, if the charge also failed to describe how the trafficking occurred, there may indeed be legal grounds to challenge the conviction. His advocate can review the record and if similar defects are found, apply for an appeal based on the same reasoning used by the Court of Appeal. Consult your lawyer for further guidance.
