Masalu Mpima v. R., Crim. App. 88-M-67; 3/5/67; Platt, J.

Masalu Mpima v. R., Crim. App. 88-M-67; 3/5/67; Platt, J.

Accused were convicted of burglary and theft. At the time for the presentation of the defence case, accused requested that certain witnesses, who were incarcerated in Malya Prison, be called to testify. The trial court refused on the grounds that the witnesses would be unreliable and that accused had not given sufficient advance notice of his request.

            Held: (1) Defence witnesses, if called for, should be allowed to appear in court and give their evidence. The evidence can then be tested as to its reliability. (2) The accused were not represented and may not have known of their power to have witnesses called in advance. Moreover under section 206 of the Criminal Procedure Code, they could elect to call the witness at the time for presentation of the defence case even though and adjournment would have been required.