Tanzania’s Appeal Court upholds death sentence in private parts mutilation murder

It was explained that on the day of the incident, September 25, 2022, in Nyegina Village, Musoma District in Mara Region, Nyabise Webiro was brutally killed at her home, where she was allegedly found lying in a pool of blood by her relatives, with serious injuries on various parts of her body, including her private parts.

It was alleged that before her death, the deceased mentioned the people she recognised as those who had attacked her.

The decision was delivered on Thursday, March 26, 2026, by a panel of three judges of the Court, namely Dr Gerald Ndika, Patricia Fikirini, and Mustafa Ismail, who were hearing Criminal Appeal No. 699/2023.

Justice Ismail said the Court was satisfied that the case against the second appellant had been proved, including through his own confession in which he admitted involvement in the murder and also explained the weapon that was used.

How it happened

Earlier, during the hearing of the main case at the High Court, it was alleged that on the night of the incident, Nyabise was found by her daughter (first witness) and her brother (second witness) lying in a pool of blood in her bedroom.

The witnesses claimed that she had not yet died and told them she had been attacked by the appellants, who cut off her private parts and fled with them, leaving her in severe pain and bleeding heavily.

It was alleged that she was rushed to Nyasho Hospital, where, due to her condition, medical personnel advised that she be transferred to Musoma Regional Referral Hospital.

The third witness, who conducted the medical examination, explained that the deceased had many injuries on her head, abdomen, and private parts and that he discovered she had been raped.

He claimed that due to those injuries, while she was undergoing surgery, she died as a result of excessive blood loss and the severe injuries she had sustained.

The fourth witness stated that investigations led to the arrest of the appellants on October 10, 2022, and November 1, 2022, during which the second appellant admitted involvement in the murder in collaboration with the first appellant.

Both appellants were convicted of the offence of murder and sentenced to death by hanging, a verdict that was based on evidence relying on the deceased’s dying declaration together with the confession statement of the second appellant.

However, the appellants filed an appeal challenging the judgment on various grounds, including claims that the evidence used was unreliable, contained legal defects, and did not prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

Judges’ decision

Justice Ismail said that after reviewing the proceedings and hearing submissions from both sides in the appeal, the Court found that the evidence presented was insufficient to convict the first appellant, thus ordering his immediate release.

However, the Court upheld the sentence against the second appellant after being satisfied that the evidence against him was sufficient to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

In its analysis, the Court of Appeal focused on several key issues, including the validity of the dying declaration, the credibility of witnesses, and the weight of the confession evidence given by the second appellant.

The Court explained that a dying declaration is a type of evidence that is legally admissible if it meets specific conditions, including being made voluntarily and while the person is of sound mind.

He said that in this case, the Court was satisfied that the declaration was made in circumstances that met legal requirements, thus carrying sufficient weight to confirm the occurrence of the incident.

However, despite accepting the declaration, the Court found that it did not directly implicate the first appellant and that additional evidence required to prove the allegations against him was not available.

The Court emphasised that although the law allows the confession of one accused person to be used against another, there must be other evidence to support such allegations.

He said that, in this case, such evidence was not presented, which led the Court to conclude that it was unsafe to convict the first appellant solely on that evidence.

On that basis, the Court decided to quash the conviction and sentence against the first appellant and ordered his immediate release unless he is being held for other lawful reasons.

Regarding the second appellant, the Court carefully examined his confession and found it to be voluntary, detailed, and fully explanatory of how the incident was carried out.

The judges noted that the confession explained in detail the plan to execute the murder, the weapon used, as well as the nature of injuries inflicted on the deceased, and that those details were consistent with the medical evidence presented in court.

The Court explained that under those circumstances, the confession of the second appellant carried significant weight in proving his guilt and that it was sufficient on its own without even requiring additional corroboration.

On this basis, the Court of Appeal concluded that the prosecution had proved the case against the second appellant beyond any reasonable doubt, thereby upholding the death sentence handed down by the lower court.

“We have carefully examined Exhibit Two, which is the confession of the second appellant that provided details of how the incident was planned, the intention to accomplish it, and went further to mention the weapon that was used, the injuries caused, and the parts of the body that were targeted,” said the Justice.

“We agree with the High Court judge in his decision that the appellant’s confession to the police was so detailed that no other person could have provided that information except the appellant. This leads us to the conclusion that the case against the second appellant was proved beyond any doubt,” concluded Justice Ismail.