Arusha. The Court of Appeal of Tanzania has overturned the conviction and quashed the seven-year prison sentence imposed on Civilian Deogratious, who had been found guilty of calling his biological mother a witch.
Mr Deogratious, popularly known as Kisandu, had been charged before the Kahama District Court in Shinyanga Region with the offence of calling his biological mother, Ms Raurencia Tundwe, a witch, contrary to Sections 4 and 5(1) of the Witchcraft Act.
The prosecution alleged that on February 14, 2022, the appellant accused his mother of practising witchcraft, claiming she had stolen his star for purposes of success and placed a snake inside his house.
The judgment acquitting him was delivered on Monday, March 9, 2026, by a panel of Court of Appeal justices: Ferdinand Wambali, Omar Othman Makungu, and Agnes Mgeyekwa.
They decided after reviewing the record of proceedings and hearing submissions from both sides in the second appeal lodged by the appellant.
In their judgment, the justices said the court found the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt and therefore quashed the conviction and acquitted the appellant.
In its analysis, the Court of Appeal noted significant inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, particularly between the first and fourth witnesses regarding the date and circumstances of the alleged incident.
The court further observed that the second, third, and fourth witnesses did not state the exact words allegedly uttered by the appellant, while only the first witness claimed to have heard them.
Justice Mgeyekwa said the court also noted that the caution statement recorded by police contained legal defects because it did not bear the appellant’s signature in the verification section.
In view of these shortcomings, the justices concluded that the evidence presented was unreliable and insufficient to establish the appellant’s guilt to the standard required in criminal cases.
The court was therefore satisfied that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
“Therefore, we allow the appeal, quash the conviction, and set aside the sentence. Accordingly, we order that the appellant be released from prison unless he is lawfully held for other reasons,” the court ruled.
Grounds of the appeal
The prosecution had alleged that on the day of the incident at the Nyahanga area in Kahama District, Shinyanga Region, the appellant called his mother a witch.
The first witness testified that on the morning of February 15, 2022, after the appellant’s mother refused to agree to his request to sell his bed, he again called her a witch.
That evidence was supported by the second witness, Mr Lameck Colinel, and the third witness, Mr Simon Amir, both claiming to have been present when the incident occurred.
The second witness stated that at about 10 am on that day, while preparing to have tea, the appellant arrived and said he intended to sell his bed, but the fourth witness, their mother, had refused to allow him to do so.
He further testified that the appellant again called her a witch. It was alleged that the matter was later reported to the village office and that the appellant was subsequently taken to the police station.
The prosecution further claimed that before the appellant was taken to the police, a meeting had been convened to resolve the dispute and that during the meeting he wrote and admitted that he had uttered the words.
It was also alleged that two days later, he continued accusing his mother of practising witchcraft.
After hearing evidence from both sides, the Kahama District Court found the appellant guilty of the offence and sentenced him to seven years in prison.
The appellant later appealed to the High Court, challenging that decision, but his appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld both the conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Current appeal
Still dissatisfied, the appellant lodged a second appeal at the Court of Appeal, advancing four grounds to challenge the earlier judgment.
In his submissions, the appellant, who represented himself, argued that the prosecution’s evidence was unreliable and contained serious weaknesses.
He explained that the neighbourhood chairperson, who testified as the first witness and claimed to have written the confession letter during the family meeting, never produced that letter in court as evidence.
According to the appellant, failure to present that crucial document rendered the witness’s testimony doubtful.
Another issue raised concerned the validity of the caution statement recorded by police, which he argued did not bear his signature in the verification section, and that the signature appearing there was not his.
The appellant maintained that he had never called his mother a witch and insisted that the evidence presented against him did not meet the threshold required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
State supports appeal
For the respondent, the State initially opposed the appeal, arguing that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the first to fourth witnesses had been consistent in their testimony.
However, after the Court of Appeal directed the state attorney to re-examine the evidence of those witnesses, the lawyer conceded that there were discrepancies in their testimony.
He explained that the first witness testified that on February 15, 2022, the fourth witness told him the appellant had called her a witch and that two days later she complained again that he had repeated the allegation.
By contrast, the fourth witness testified that she informed the first witness that the appellant had called her a witch on February 14, 2022.
The state attorney initially argued that the inconsistency was minor and did not affect the substance of the case.
However, when further questioned by the court on whether the difference was indeed minor, he admitted the discrepancy was significant.
He acknowledged that it would have been impossible for the appellant to commit another offence at the same place two days after his arrest.
The state attorney ultimately conceded that the contradiction undermined the foundation of the prosecution’s case and its central claim and therefore supported the appeal.
