Zuberi s/o Rashidi and Adam s/o Kibwana v. R., Crim. App. 1-A-69, 7/3/69, Platt J.

Zuberi s/o Rashidi and Adam s/o Kibwana v. R., Crim. App. 1-A-69, 7/3/69, Platt J.

The two appellants were convicted of corruptly obtaining Shs. 400/- from one Saidi s/o Varisanga as an inducement for forbearing to charge him with unlawful possession of a government trophy, c/ss 3(1) and 3(3) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance, Cap. 400. The appellants, who were game scouts went to Saidi’s house and demanded to search without warrant. Saidi permitted the to do so, and the appellants found inside a hartebeest skin, which Saidi claimed had been used for sleeping on for a long period. The appellants then led Saidi away to be prosecuted. On the way the appellants, in the presence of others, demanded money as an inducement not to prosecute. It was agreed that Saidi should pay Shs. 400/-, which was done the following night in the presence of witnesses. In convicting the appellants, the magistrate relied partly on Saidi’s evidence.

            Held; (1) There is no doubt that if Saudi actually gave the money to the appellants that he was an accomplice taking part in the offence of corruption. It is a general rule of practice founded upon prudence that it is unsafe to convict an accused upon the evidence of an accomplice without corroboration. The law on the subject, if I may say so, is compendiously dealt with in Canisio s/o Wawa v. R. (1956) 23 E.A.C.A. 453. It is only in exceptional cases in which a departure from general practice is justified. The criterion as to whether such an exceptional case has arisen is the credibility of the accomplice or accomplices combined with the weight to be attributed to the fact to which they testified. The principal factors to be considered when assessing their credibility is not only their demeanour and quality as witnesses but also their relation to the offence charge and the part which they played in connection therewith, that is say, the degree of their criminal complicity, in law and in fact …… it is apparent then that as the learned Magistrate did not direct himself as to the danger of accepting accomplice’s evidence without corroboration, it would not be proper for me to rely on his acceptance of Saidi’s evidence without corroboration the grounds that the case came within the exception of the general rule. But his conclusion may be supported in so far as the evidence of other witnesses did corroborate Saidi’s testimony ……the Republic contended that taking the evidence of the four witnesses together with the evidence of Ali and Lukio, there could be no doubt that Saidi’s evidence was reliable. After careful consideration, I think, that that is so.” (2) (In passing) Prosecution of peasants found using a game trophy for domestic purposes may be quite justified but perhaps game officers would serve the public more in trying to issue certificates of ownership rather than bringing prosecutions. (3) Appeals dismissed.