%20(1).png)
Sadik Budha Ilyas v. R., Crim. App. 210-Z-67, 2/9/67, Kimicha Ag. C. J.
The accused, who had previously been declared a prohibited immigrant, was convicted of entering and remaining in the Republic while being a prohibited immigrant. [Immigration control Decree, Cap. 43, ss. 5(1), (2) and 13(1)(h).] The accused said nothing in his defence.
Held: (1) After the prosecution had presented its case, the onus of proof was on the accused to show that he was not in the Republic illegally. Since he made no defence at all, his conviction in the lower court was clearly correct.
(2) “Immigration is a union matter under the Tanzanian constitution, and this case would probably have raised a very important constitutional point of law for the consideration of the High Court , had the appellant decided to defend himself in the lower court.”
(3) Upon release from prison, the accused’s travel documents (issued in
%20(10).png)
%20(1).png)
%20(1).png)
%20(1).png&description= Sadik Budha Ilyas v. R., Crim. App. 210-Z-67, 2/9/67, Kimicha Ag. C. J.){kind=link}
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.