Oscar Jonas Mwambola v. R., Crim. App. 320-A-68, 21/10/68, Seaton J.

Oscar Jonas Mwambola v. R., Crim. App. 320-A-68, 21/10/68, Seaton J.

The accused was convicted of communicating to an unauthorised person the contents of an official secret document c/s 5(1)(a) and 15, Official Secrets Ordinance Cap. 45, and was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. On 2^nd September, 1967, the security officer for Nzega district arrested and detained the Hon.Kasela-Bantu, then M.P. from Nzega. That evening the security officer wrote a letter to His Excellency the President, explaining why the Hon. M.P. had been detained. This letter was marked “SECRET” and sent to H.E. the President. Accused then Area Commissioner for Nzega, received a copy of the letter, On 6^th September, 1967, Kasela-Bantu was released from detention by H.E. the President. On 7^th September, accused, who by this time had been dismissed as Area Commissioner, read out the contents of the secret letter in the presence of Kasela-Bantu and two others, to prove that he had not been the person responsible for the detention. The transmission of the information in the letter is the letter is the solve violation charged.

            Held: (1) s. 5(1) refers, inter alia, to “any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document, or information which relates to or is used in a prohibited place or anything in such a place, or which has been made or obtained in contravention of this ordinance or which has been entrusted in confidence to him by any person holding office under the Republic or which he had obtained or to which he had access owing to his position as a person who holds or has held a contract made on behalf of the Republic, or as a person who is or has been employed under a person who holds or has held such office or contract …..” (underlining added). The accused has submitted that the word “document” must be construed as being qualified by the words “which relates to or is used in a prohibited place or anything in any such place”, and that since it has not been proved that document in question fulfills this qualification, the conviction cannot be supported. However there is no reason to put such a narrow interpretation on the word “document”. It would appear that the words “which

Relates to or is used in a prohibited place or anything in such place” are restricted to the word “information” which immediately precedes the word “information” which immediately precedes the words quoted and that the word “document” is qualified b the words” or which has been made or obtained” and following. (Citing Rex v. Simington (1921) 1 K. B. 451, similarly interpreting  the analogous section of the English Official Secrets Act.) The maximum term of imprisonment for minor offence under the Act is two years; accused her received 18 months. “The court …..was influenced in giving the sentence it did by the need to protect the security of Tanzania, ‘a revolutionary progressive country having enemies not so far away to the South of its borders and others no doubt within the country.’ The learned magistrate concluded that he would be failing in his duty if he did not underline the necessity for everyone to be security conscious especially those who are in a position to know official secrets. Although the High Court considered the sentence severe, it was not “so excessive as to warrant interference severe, it was not “so excessive as to warrant interference” by it. Conviction and sentence confirmed.