baunsamuoga
JF-Expert Member
- Apr 16, 2023
- 1,135
- 1,182
Big money never comes clean!
acha udiniNaomba asiwe na jina la kigalatia. Yani sijui tutaficha wapi sura zetu?
hydroxo adriz Mufti kuku The Infinity
Ukiona Mbongo kakamatwa SA, ujue Mbongo mwenzake katoa Mchongo Kwa Police.
Na wanapiga Hela kinoma 🤣🤣Kutafuta hakuna dini mkuu ukitaka kuamini viongozi wa kibongo wanaapishwa wameshika misahafu lakini hao hao ndiyo wezi wakubwa duniani hakuna.
Wewe jamaa. Hii mijadala unayoleta kwa kutumia UDINI siyo mizurii ila sijui lengo lako ninini? Haya mambo ya ugalatia yanatoka wapi mkuu??Naomba asiwe na jina la kigalatia. Yani sijui tutaficha wapi sura zetu?
hydroxo adriz Mufti kuku The Infinity
Watafutaji wasioipora na kikihujumu Tanganyika kama afanyavyo Samia na genge lake, ajali kazini.15 Julai 2025
273 Voortrekker Road, Goodwood, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa
Mtanzania umri miaka 32, akamatwa na madawa ya kulevya thamani ya shilingi 7.8 bilioni
Msako huo siku ya jumapili tarehe 13 Julai 2025 kufuatia taarifa za kiintelejensia alisema kiongozi wa operesheni Lieutenant Colonel Malcolm Pojie kuhusu msako huo uliowatia mbaroni raia mmoja wa kitanzania na mwenzie wa,...
Lieutenant Colonel Malcolm Pojie alisema lengo lao kwa taarifa za awali ni kwamba waliokamatwa walikuwa wauzaji wadogo lakini wakiwa eneo wakifungua makabati ndipo wakapata taarifa za ziada za kiintelejensia wakatanua ukaguzi wao hadi darini na kukumbana na zaidi ya kilogram 140 za madawa ...
Thamani ya madawa yaliyokutwa darini na sehemu nyingine katika makazi ya nyumba hiyo moja ni randi 54.4 milioni sawa na shilingi zaidi ya bilioni 7.8..
Watuhumiwa wanatarajiwa kufikishwa katika mahakama ya Hakimu Mkazi Mkuu ya Goodwood Magistrates’ ya nchini Africa ya Kusini
==================
Some of the drugs were found hidden in the roof of the raided house.
Goodwood drug bust. Picture: Saps
Two foreign nationals are facing drug trafficking charges following a major intelligence-led operation in Goodwood that resulted in the seizure of narcotics worth R54.3 million on Sunday afternoon.
Members of Operation Restore executed a search warrant at a residence on Molteno Street at approximately 13:45 on Sunday,13 July 2025, leading to the discovery of substantial quantities of heroin and crystal methamphetamine, also known as Tik, hidden throughout the property.
Initial drug discovery leads to arrests
The operation began when officers searched the premises and made their first significant find in a bedroom cupboard.
“During the search, the members discovered and seized 6kg of heroin, which was found in a cupboard in one of the rooms,” said Police spokesperson Lieutenant Colonel Malcolm Pojie.
Pojie said the occupant of the room, a 32-year-old Tanzanian national, was immediately arrested and charged with dealing in heroin ...
Source : Tanzanian and Burundian nationals arrested in R54.3m drug bust in South Africa | The Citizen
cc loose Nut, naona wagalatia mmeanza kuingilia dili kubwa bila koneksheni, ona sasa mnakamatwa kama kuku23 January 2026
JELA MIAKA 28 JELA KWA KUSAFIRISHA HEROINI KG 268.50
Misalaba MediaJanuary 23, 20260
Na Mwandishi wetu.
Mahakama Kuu ya Uhujumu Uchumi, Divisheni ya Makosa ya Rushwa, imemhukumu kifungo cha miaka 28 jela mshtakiwa Isso Lomward Lupembe, baada ya kupatikana na hatia ya kushiriki katika kusafirisha dawa za kulevya kiasi cha kilogramu 268.50 aina ya heroin. Mshtakiwa huyo alikuwa mshtakiwa wa kwanza kati ya watatu waliokuwa wakikabiliwa na shauri hilo la uhujumu uchumi.
Akisoma hukumu hiyo tarehe 22 Januari, 2026, Mheshimiwa Jaji Otaru Joachimu alisema mahakama imezingatia muda wa miaka mitano na miezi tisa ambao mshtakiwa amekaa rumande tangu alipokamatwa. Kutokana na hilo, mahakama imeelekeza kuwa atatumikia kifungo cha miaka 22 na miezi mitatu iliyobaki ili kukamilisha adhabu yake.
Katika hatua nyingine, mahakama hiyo imemuondolea mashtaka mshtakiwa Alistair Amon Mbele, baada ya upande wa Jamhuri kushindwa kuthibitisha mashitaka dhidi yake bila kuacha shaka yoyote. Mshtakiwa huyo alikuwa anashtakiwa pamoja na wenzake katika shauri la uhujumu uchumi namba ECO 36/2020.
Shauri hilo liliwahusu watuhumiwa watatu ambao ni David Kanayo Chukwu, raia wa Nigeria, Isso Lomward Lupembe, raia wa Tanzania, na Alistair Amon Mbele, pia raia wa Tanzania.
Kwa upande wa mshtakiwa David Kanayo Chukwu, ambaye ni raia wa Nigeria, kesi yake bado inaendelea katika mahakama hiyo baada ya kukana shtaka linalomkabili.
Upande wa Jamhuri katika shauri hilo uliwakilishwa na Mawakili wa Serikali Elizabeth Muhangwa na Phoibe Magili.
Kwa mujibu wa hati ya mashtaka, watuhumiwa hao walikamatwa tarehe 15 Aprili 2020, katika eneo la Mbezi, Kibanda cha Mkaa, na maafisa wa Mamlaka ya Kudhibiti na Kupambana na Dawa za Kulevya (DCEA), wakidaiwa kusafirisha dawa za kulevya kiasi cha kilogramu 268.50 aina ya heroin.
Mahakama imeahirisha shauri hilo hadi tarehe 23 Februari, 2026, litakapopangwa kusikilizwa tena kwa ajili ya kuendelea na hatua za kisheria dhidi ya mshtakiwa aliyebaki
Hahahahahaaaaa huyo mbona wamekosea badala ya Issa wameandika Isso?cc loose Nut, naona wagalatia mmeanza kuingilia dili kubwa bila koneksheni, ona sasa mnakamatwa kama kuku
Gunia mbili rumbesa za 130kg, duh, wangevushwa hao tungekoma mitaani na Vogue ya kutosha
Drug Enforcement Commission director general Nason Banda making his remarks during a press briefing at the commission headquarters in Lusaka on Tuesday 3rd February 2026-Picture
Hatari sana.
ZN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM
(CORAM: MWARI3A, 3.A.. KENTE, 3.A. And MURUKE, 3.A.)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 501 OF 2023
LONIE LIONEL RAYFORD ............................... APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE REPUBLIC ......... .........RESPONDENT
(Appeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Tanzania, Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Division at Dar es Salaam)
(Isaya, 3/) Dated the 26th day of May, 2023 in
Economic Case No. 17 of 2021
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
12th February & 10th March, 2026
KENTE, J.A.:
The appellant appeared before the Anti-Corruption and Economic
Crimes Division of the High Court of Tanzania (the trial court), where he was charged and convicted of one count of unlawful trafficking in narcotic drugs, contrary to section 15 (1) (a) of the Drugs Control and
Enforcement Act, Chapter 95 of the Revised Laws (the DCEA), read
together with paragraph 23 of the First Schedule to, and sections 57 (1) and 60 (2) of the Economic and Organised Crimes Control Act, Chapter 200 of the Revised Laws (the EOCCA). It was alleged that, on 4th July 2018 at Julius Nyerere International Airport in the Ilala District of Dar es
Page 1
Salaam Region ofthe United Republic of Tanzania, the appellant was found while trafficking innarcotic drugs namely,Heroin Hydrochloride weighing 2.188 kilograms.
After hearing ten prosecution witnesses and the appellant who was a sole witness to his case, the learned trial Judge in a judgment delivered on 26th May 2023, was satisfied that going by the totality of the evidence before him, the prosecution had proved the case against the appellant to the required standard. He thus proceeded to convict him and
subsequently sentenced him to the mandatory twenty years
imprisonment.
Discomposed by the decision of the trial court, the appellant has
now taken up the cudgels seeking to assail the said decision on several grounds both procedural and substantive. However, in view of what will soon become apparent in this judgment, we will neither reproduce nor paraphrase all the grounds impugning the decision of the trial court.
Suffice it to say that as we see it, the most dispositive issue of this appeal gyrates around the general complaint by the appellant that, because of the defects in the consent issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions pursuant to section 26 (1) of the EOCCA authorising and initiating his
prosecution which was a prerequisite before the trial could proceed the
Page 2
trial court acted without jurisdiction as to render the proceedings and
subsequent judgment a nullity.
The above is in essence what we raised suo motu and asked the
learned counsel appearing for the parties in this matter to address us, bearing in mind that, in any court proceedings, jurisdiction is a fundamental legal principle that dictates a court's power to hear and determine cases.
Briefly stated, the evidence before the trial court was that, on 4th
July 2018, officers from the Tanzania Police Force and the Drugs Enforcement Commission, received information that the appellant was dealing in drugs and that, as part of a broader pattern, he was intending
to travel from Tanzania to the USA via Julius Nyerere International
Airport.
Relying on that information, the said officers set out for the
appellant's intended point of exit at Julius Nyerere International Airport where they managed to arrest him and impound his two bags. A search conducted in one of the said bags is said to have revealed prepacks of the drugs that are subject of the present appeal. Moreover, it was the
prosecution case that, during interrogation, the appellant confessed trafficking in drugs and the allegation that the seized items were his.
Page 3
Forensic analysis of the said items confirmed that they were
Hydrochloride weighing 2.188 kilograms.
However, in his defence, the appellant denied the evidence led in support of the prosecution case. Specifically, he denied admitting that the drugs found by the Police Officers were his and being found with any drugs in his luggage or on his person.
After hearing the parties, the trial Judge considered the rival
evidence regarding the general question as to whether or not on the material day, the appellant was found trafficking in narcotic drugs. He accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses who said that, after
the appellant's two bags were impounded and a search conducted, one of the said bags revealed the presence of the drugs subject of this appeal.
The trial Judge also found that, the appellant had signed a certificate of seizure acknowledging not only thatthe items seized from him were drugs but also that they were his and that, he was in the course of trafficking them from Dar es Salaam Tanzania to Bologna, Italy. To that end, the trial court went on convicting and sentencing him accordingly.
As stated earlier, in the appeal before us, the appellant who was represented by Mr. Josephat Mabula learned Advocate, has canvassed
several grounds of appeal save for one ground which faults
Page 4
for trying and convicting the appellant of an economic offence without the requisite jurisdiction a ground which the learned counsel curiously decided to abandon before presentation of substantive arguments.
However, from the very beginning, we drew the attention of Ms. Edith
Mauya learned Senior State Attorney who was assisted by Ms. Eva Kassa and Mr. Erick Kamala, both learned State Attorneys representing the respondent, to the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions (the DPP) appearing on page five of the record of appeal. What we sought to drive home, is the fact that the consent shows that the DPP had
consented to the prosecution of the appellant for contravention of theprovisions of Paragraph 23 of the First Schedule to the EOCCA as
amended without specifically making reference to section 15 (1) (a) which is the specific law allegedly violated by the appellant.
When it truly dawned on the learned Senior State Attorney who had initially intimated to us that she was supporting the appellant's conviction and sentence and therefore, vociferously opposed to the appeal, she reneged on her position and subsequently submitted that, indeed the trial
court had acted without the requisite jurisdiction. Perhaps inadvertently, she went on entreating us to order for retrial without addressing us on the fate of the proceedings and decision made by the trial court in the
first place.
Page 5
In pressing for a retrial order to be made, the learned Senior State Attorney relied on our earlier decision in the case of Silvanus Maneno Mkasanya @ Kelvin and Another v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No 347 of 2023 in which, for the same reason, after nullifying the proceedings and quashing the appellants' conviction and sentence, we
went on ordering a retrial as we thought, in that particular case, the
interests of justice required a trial. In support of her position, the learned Senior State Attorney argued that this appeal was on all fours with Silvanus Maneno Mkasanga (supra).
We were also referred to the principles governing whether or not a retrial should be ordered in line with the decision of the now defunct Court of Appeal of East Africa which is a predecessor of this Court in the cerebrated case of Fatehali Manji v. Republic [1966] E.A. 343. It was the learned Senior State Attorney's position that, since the appellant in the present matter was charged with a serious offence, an order for retrial would be in the interest of justice.
For his part, Mr. Mabula submitted on the contrary that, an order
for retrial would not be in the interest of justice in this case. The learned counsel took his argument further by contending that, in the most likely event, ordering retrial would, all in all, risk untold injustice on the part of the appellant. Such an order, he argued, was likely to give an opportunity
Page 6
to the prosecution to fill in the gaps in its case. For this reason, the learned counsel implored us to nullify the proceedings of the trial court,
quash the appellant's conviction and set aside the custodial sentence meted out on him. We were further urged to order for the appellant's immediate release from jail without conditions.
In our determination of this appeal, we have considered the record
of appeal together with the arguments from either side. The learned
Senior State Attorney has been magnanimous and conceded that, in so far as the consent by the DPP initiating the appellant's prosecution did not make reference to section 15 (1) (a) of the DCEA which creates the
offence with which the appellant stood charged, it did not vest any
jurisdiction in the trial court to adjudicate the matter. The learned Senior State Attorney went on to confirm that, as such, the trial court had acted without the requisite jurisdiction and that procedural anomally vitiated
both the proceedings and the resulting judgment.
Without hesitation, we agree with the appellant's complaint and the
concession by the learned Senior State Attorney. Indeed, the trial court was not clothed with the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter as the consent issued by the DPP authorising the appellant's prosecution
omitted to cite the provisions of the law allegedly violated by the
appellant. Dealing with a similar situation in the case of Leonard
Page 7
Malacha Rhobi v.Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 2022, in which
we had to determine the same issue, we guided that, the consent of the DPP must be given in respect of the provisions in the information and it ought to make reference to the offence charged or else it becomes useless rendering the trial court without jurisdiction to try the offence for want of consent. Similarly, in the case of Silvanus Mkasanga (supra), to which we were ably referred by Ms. Mauya, we observed that, the
omission to mention in the consent the specific provisions of section 15
(1) (a), (c) and 3 (1) of the DCEA which created the offence, vitiated the proceedings and the resulting judgment as the case was tried without the requisite consent.
Bearing in mind what we have said about what was, at the time,
the position of the law on any case of the present nature which we are
inclined to follow, our decision on this point is that indeed the lower court went on trying the appellant who was charged with an economic offence without the consent by the DPP. Due to this, the entire proceedings and
the resulting judgment were vitiated.
In the ultimate event, we allow the appeal, and consequently,
pursuant to section 4 (2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Chapter 141 of the Revised Laws, we nullify the proceeding of the trial court in Economic Case No. 17 of 2021, quash the appellant's conviction and set aside the
Page 8
Custodial meted out on him. As to the way forward, we desist
from making an order for retrial as that remains in the exclusive
prerogative of the DPP. What further compounds our position on the course to be taken in this case, is the indubitable finding that the trial court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. We therefore order for the appellant's release from jail if he is not further detained for some
other lawful cause.
DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 6th day of March, 2026.
A. G. MWARD A
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
P. M. KENTE
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
Z. G. MURUKE
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
The Judgment delivered via virtual link, this 10th day of March, 2026
in the presence of appellant from Ukonga Central Prison and Mr. Josephat Sayi Mabula, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Winfrida Ouko, learned State Attorney for the respondent/Republic and Ms. Tabitha Mwita, Court Clerk, is hereby certified as a true copy of the original.
E. G. MRANGU
SENIOR DEPUTY REGISTRAR
COURT OF APPEAL
Source : https://tanzlii.org/en/akn/tz/judgment/tzca/2026/277/eng@2026-03-10