Tanzania High Court frees man sentenced to 20 years for possession of elephant tusks

Arusha. The Shinyanga Sub-Registry of the High Court of Tanzania has released Peter Ndekeja, who had been serving a 20-year prison sentence for possession of two full elephant tusks and seven pieces of ivory, valued at $30,000.

The court overturned the conviction after identifying legal irregularities in the case.

Peter, who was originally sentenced by the Meatu District Court in Economic Crime Case No. 9 of 2023, was ordered to be freed.

Among the errors cited was the lower court’s failure to properly record witness testimony, which prevented the High Court from fully understanding the evidence presented.

Additionally, the search conducted during the investigation violated Section 40 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), rendering the evidence obtained inadmissible.

Another key issue was the lack of a proper seal on the certificate and authorization from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), which allowed the case to proceed in the lower court. This irregularity was acknowledged by the state attorney during the appeal.

The ruling was delivered on September 27, 2024, by Justice Ruth Massam, who presided over Criminal Appeal No. 22200 of 2024. After hearing arguments from both the defense and prosecution, the court ruled in favor of Peter’s release due to the significant legal errors in the trial process.

Case background

Peter was initially charged in the Meatu District Court with possession of government trophies, specifically two complete elephant tusks and seven pieces of ivory.

The value of the tusks was estimated at $30,000. This was a violation of Section 86(1) and (2)(b) of the Wildlife Conservation Act, along with the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act (EOCCA).

He was accused of possessing the illegal items on April 29, 2023, in Sakasaka Village, Meatu District, Simiyu Region. After a full trial, Peter was found guilty and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Appeal

During the appeal, Peter, represented by lawyer Sululu, raised two main issues: first, that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and second, that the magistrate lacked authority to hear the case, as the DPP’s certificate and authorization were improperly issued.

State attorney Saguya Goodluck represented the prosecution in the appeal.

Lawyer Sululu focused on the second argument, stating that the DPP’s certificate, while issued, was not properly sealed, violating established legal procedures.

Citing prior rulings by the Court of Appeal, Sululu argued that the lack of a properly sealed certificate invalidated the trial and called for Peter’s immediate release.

The lawyer also requested that the case not be retried, as doing so would allow the prosecution to correct its mistakes, especially regarding the improper identification of the ivory.

In response, the state attorney conceded that the certificate was not sealed and admitted that several procedural errors had occurred during the trial, including the illegal search and failure to properly record evidence.

Ruling

Justice Massam, after reviewing the submissions and the lower court records, agreed with the arguments presented by both the defense and the prosecution. She confirmed that the failure to properly seal the DPP’s certificate, combined with other significant legal errors, was enough to invalidate the entire trial.

The judge also agreed that the search was conducted unlawfully, violating Section 40 of the CPA, as it took place without a warrant.

Citing Section 388 of the CPA, Justice Massam ruled that the legal errors were serious enough to nullify the conviction and sentence. She ordered Peter’s immediate release.