Makubi s/o Nana v. R., Crim. App. 335-D-68, -/7/68, Hamlyn J.

Makubi s/o Nana v. R., Crim. App. 335-D-68, -/7/68, Hamlyn J.

Accused was convicted of corruption [Prevention of Corruption Ordinance, s. 3(2)] A Village Executive Officer has come to his house to count his cattle for tax purposes. Accused said that some of the cattle in his kraal belonged to a neighbor. When the officer insisted on counting them all, accused offered him a twenty-shilling not, as he admitted in his testimony, “as an inducement not to include the other cattle which were of another man.” The trial court took this explanation as a plea of guilty.

            Held: A necessary element of the offence is that the act of offering an inducement be done “corruptly”. But for an act to be done corruptly, it must be done with an evil mind or an evil intention. [Citing Mandia v. R., (1966) E. A. 315; R. v. Akbarali K. Jetha, 14 E.A.C.A. 122; and Bradford Election Petition. (No.2), (1869) 19 L.T. 723] The accused here clearly had no evil mind. “The dictionary meaning of ‘corrupt’ in this sense is to induce to act dishonestly or unfaithfully, and in no sense can appellant be said to have acted thus.” So the accused ’s statement was not equivalent to a plea of guilty, since it contained no admission of having acted corruptly. Appeal allowed; conviction quashed.