I seriously interested with the topic posted here in above, "Why Armed Robbery is Non-bailable Offence?" I understand why you are trying to ask this question. It had been long time now when this question became debatable before the panel of Judges those years. Since it was debatable but yet no clear argument was given. But I wonder why your dispute is contradicting with the question? Perhaps when you were trying to post this strong question your mind went blunk, means you were not well organised. I argue you when you are doing serious issue like this try to settle you mind especial in this noble forum. But this is not the issue to discuss before me
Armed robbery as defined under section 285 of the Penal Code denotes that the use of force immeditely before or immeditely after or violence or the use of offensive weapons or accompanied by another person in order to obtain the property of another person or to retain the said property, this person or these persons will be committing an Armed Robbery. The concept here one might find out is that using an offensive weapons or any instrument against the other or accompanied by another person shows the intention there is no sense one to object ie committing the offence with guilty intention.
Coming to this argument "Why this offence is non-baillable" It is clear from my mind without any doubt that all offences which are non-baillable offence undet Tanzanian Laws are grave offence, now the question is whether Armed Robbery is grave within the meaning of grave? I wish to define the word grave from literal meaning so that to satisfy my thinking. According to Collins Dictionary the word "Grave" means something either event or situation which is more serious and worrying. I concure with this definition and conclude that Armed Robbery is more serious, voluntarily made and worrying and it is due to its nature, the way it is committed thus way it is taken as something serious.
From this argument one might find diffcult to conclude that Armed Robbery is a grave offence because the section has mentioned the word instrument which is a generic word. The word itself may include any instrument say a pen, a stick, that the offender might use to obtain the property from the complainant. Now one might well say that the offender has not committed the grave offence because he has used the lesser instrument to commit the offence . To answer this question is better to ask ourselves what was the "Intention of the Parliament" I think the intention of the parliament was to protect the property of an individual from being deprived or taken away from the owner by any means as per Article 24 of the Constitution of URT. Also the intention was to avoid overpowering from obtaing the property of someone, means if someone uses any instrument either offensive or weaker instrument to obtain any property from another he has overpowered the other, this meanps that if someone has used a piece of strict to obtain the property from another person he has used more power than the other and thus why the concept of overpowering prevails. The issue is not what kind of instrument used but rather the use of any instrument to obtain the property which is not yours.
It is clear now to understand that the intention of the parliament was the issue of overpowering and thus why the concept of accompanied by another person was also included. If the offender is accompanied by another person that another person will be termed as an instrument. Therefore it is safe to conclude that Armed Robbery is non-baillable offence and should continue to be so unless the law invoke otherwise because the offender had guilty intenion against the owner, he is overpowering and finally the law protects the property of an individual
JOGOO HALAZIMISHWI KUWIKA.
L