Jonas Saul and others v. R., Crim. App. 244-M-71, 22/1/72, Kisanga, Ag . J.

 

Jonas Saul and others v. R., Crim. App. 244-M-71, 22/1/72, Kisanga, Ag . J.

The appellant in question were convicted of being members of an unlawful society c/s 20, Societies Ordinance. In their defences they claimed that they belonged to the Witnesses of Jehovah, whereas the particulars of the charge alleged that they were members of the Watch Tower Bible Society.

            Held: (1) “It is clear that the appellants were charged under the correct section i.e. section 20 of the Societies Ordinance for being members of an unlawful society. Under Government Notice No. 287 of 1965 both the Watch Tower Bible Society and the Society of Jehovah’s Witnesses are made unlawful, so that the appellants were equally guilty for being members of the Society of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Indeed there was an irregularity in the trial in that the moment it became apparent on the evidence that the appellants were members of the society of Jehovah’s Witnesses the particulars should have been amended to accord with the evidence by alleging that the appellants were members of the society of Johavah’s Witnesses. I am satisfied, however, that this irregularity did not occasion a failure of justice because the conviction was for an offence created by the same Section 20 of the societies Ordinance under which the appellants were charged. Indeed the appellants Jolo Kiswanta and Sweet Bert Kiswanta while admitting membership of the society y of Jehovah’s Witnesses contended that they did not know that that society was unlawful because no notice was published by the Government to that effect. Thus even if the particulars had been amended to accord with the evidence, it is clear that these appellants had absolutely no defence and this, to my mind, increasingly adds to the view that the failure to amend he particulars to accord with the evidence cannot have occasioned any failure of justice.”  (2) “I would therefore uphold the convictions of these three appellants and the sentences imposed on them cannot be said to be excessive.”