Mkiramweni v. R. Crim. App. 329-D-70; 30-9-70; Makame, J.

Mkiramweni v. R. Crim. App. 329-D-70; 30-9-70; Makame, J.

The appellant, formerly the officer in charge of the Special Constabulary in Tanga Region, was convicted of giving false information and of Libel c/ss. 122 and 187 of the Penal Code. Evidence was adduced to the effect that the appellant wrote letters to various people including His Excellency the President of the United Republic and the Chairman of the Permanent Commission of Enquiry alleging that the Regional Police Commander was guilty of nepotism, unfair treatment of Special Constables, irregular use of Government motor vehicles and unnecessary transfers of police officers. Appellant was dismissed by a letter because he did not attend punctually a meeting of Special Constables, and apparently it was this letter which prompted the appellant to write the various letters. There was evidence from both the prosecution and defence witnesses that Special Constables were being dismissed rather abruptly. One prosecution witness said that he had read the letter to His Excellency the President and was satisfied that some of the allegations were true. This witness was not treated as a hostile witness and therefore there was no way of finding what information was false or true and the Court did not asked what allegations were true and which were false. There was also further evidence of summary dismissal of other Special Constables.

            Held: (1) “The Regional Police Commander may have power to dismiss Special Constables without giving reasons, but when things reach a court of law in circumstances as the present ones, the reasons for the dismissals may have to be looked at so as to establish whether or not the allegations said to have been made were false. The Regional Police Commander admitted that police officers were being shunted around rather often but his was because there had been some trouble in Lushoto district and police officers from there had to be pulled out and this involved transfers of other policemen.” (2) I agree with the learned Resident Magistrate, that the allegations said to have been made on the second count can be defamatory and I also agree that “the matter is complaint or accusation”, but because of what I have already said in connection with the first count, I am unable to agree with the learned Resident Magistrate that the absence of good faith within the meaning of section 193 of the Penal Code has been shown.” (3) Appeal allowed.