Polisi Ni Washenzi, Waonevu Na Wasenge

THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MLELE
AT MLELE
CRIMINAL CASE NO.22/2018
REPUBLIC
VS
TUMAIN S/O EDWIN ........................................ACCUSED
JUDGMENT
28TH/02/2018 & 14TH/05/2018
T.SWAI – RM1:
“... Polisi ni washenzi, waonevu, wasenge ...”

At first instance, I do concede & or opine that, the above
phrase is actionable both in tort, as well as in the criminal
proceeding.
The said seditious phrase is on the charge, which is subject

matter of the instant trial under scrutiny.
As per wording of the said charge, those terms were uttered by

the accused person (DW1) one TUMAIN S/O EDWIN on 1st day
of February, 2018, against No. H.8838 DC OMARY (PW2) &
against all other Police officials.
The prosecution, paraded to this court three police witnesses

namely: No.H.6017 DC VITUSI (PW1), No. H.8838 DC OMARY
(PW2) & No.G.9926 DC FURAHA (PW3) in an attempt to
support & prove the charge laid down over DW1.
Page 1 of 6
The substance of oral testimonies from DC VITUSI & DC
OMARY (PW1 & PW2) is/are almost the same, that is to say, on
1st/02/2018, the duo witnesses paid visit at Inyonga Bus Stand
for a sole purpose of arresting one JOSEPH DOMINICK whom
complainant with Ref; No. THB/TR/544/2017 was lodged
against him after being alleged to have stolen a motor bike
from Tabora Region.
The versions by PW1 & PW2 were to the effect that, they duly
affected arrest & detention of JOSEPH DOMINICK who was at
Inyonga Bus stand.
Then, after the arrest of JOSEPH DOMINICK, he was matched

to Inyonga police station & kept within Lock-up there at.
DC VITUSI & DC OMARY then matched out from the Police

office.
These two prosecution witnesses testified further that, just in

the vicinity of Inyonga Police Station, they witnessed a total of
8-10 motor circles with their riders’ on board.
DC OMARY (PW2), loudly informed the riders that, their fellow,

JOSEPH DOMINICK had been apprehended following allegation
of motor bike stealing, while DC VITUSI (PW1) in full blast told
them, if they want to ascertain JOSEPH DOMINICK fate, they
ought to send their Leader & not to appear at police station
on such crowd.
According to DC OMARY (PW2), the crowd vacated the place

save for DW1, I.e. accused person, as per testimony of DC
VITUSI & DC OMARY, accused person one TUMAIN EDWIN, did
not only pre occupy the scene, but also with high pitch
proclaimed;
Page 2 of 6
“Nyie Polisi, Washenzi, Waonevu, na Wasenge”
Following the said unpleasant words, DW1 got apprehended, &
No.G.9926 DC FURAHA (PW3) was on the subsequent date
assigned to investigate the matter, never the less, DC FURAHA
had nothing much to do with DW1, for the latter had already
being interrogated, so, PW3 only interrogated the would be
prosecution witnesses & arraigned TUMAIN EDWIN to this
court facing a charge of abusive language c/s 89(1)(a) of The
Penal code [Cap 16 R.E 2002] hereinafter to be referred as
“PC”.
On his part, TUMAIN EDWIN, (DW1), maintained his

innocence.
DW1, together with his witness YOHANA JACOB (DW2), did not
dispute going to Police station, none the less, they strongly
urged, DW1 never uttered the alleged bitter terms against DC
OMARY, both blamed the latter “PW2” that, he was abusing his
powers only after being unequivocally told by DW1 that, it is
not an offence or a crime to seek cell numbers from inmate(s)
... In particular their comrade: JOSEPH DOMINICK.
Inspector Baraka appeared as Public Prosecutor (PP), while,

TUMAIN EDWIN, (DW1) appeared in person without legal
representation.
The issue I’m Inclined to resolve is;-
- Whether accused person (DW1) is guilty as charged!!!.
The crux of the matter as per the charge is the phrase;
“Nyie Polisi ni Washenzi, Waonevu na Wasenge” was Levelled

to DC OMARY & all other Policemen.
Page 3 of 6
The charge on record, speaks volume to this effect, that is to
say, DC OMARY was also victimised in person.
However, unlike what the charge is coached for, or about, the

accounts or the substance of oral testimony from DC OMARY
who is purported complainant victim, & his sole Eye witness;
DC VITUS, do not support the charge, Why ???,
Neither DC VITUSI nor DC OMARY said those words were

levelled to the Latter; Even DC FURAHA, who interrogated the
former witnesses, did not say, the words were referred to DC
OMARY in person as Police.
The complained phrase beforehand does contain three “Nouns”

if my grammar is correct; that is to say:
“Washenzi, Waonevu, Wasenge”

All these were directed to “Polisi” in general, It is crystal clear
or pretty clear on record that, all prosecution witnesses (PW1,
PW2, PW3) did not say, accused person (DW1) specified or
particularised a single Police namely DC OMARY (PW2).
The above being the position, & the fact that, DC OMARY, did
not say, he was acting for himself & on the behalf of all other
police officials, & the fact that his “Locus Standi” for other
Police officials is unsubstantiated & doubtful, Leave(s) room for
doubts.
Therefore, the defence by TUMAIN EDWIN (DW1) that, he is

not guilty is merited.
The prosecution has had statutory burden of proving

otherwise, that is to say, substantiating the charge which
reflected DC OMARY as complainant victim among other victims
Page 4 of 6
It is my humble opinion further that, the Pandora Box can’t be
such open for Every Police individual who feels annoyed by
complained vulgar phrase to come to court as the complainant
victim owing the fact that, the prosecution witnesses stated,
the statement started with term:
“Nyie Polisi ...” & not a specific police officer;

The prosecution machinery, ought to think of proper mode to
correct the lacuna.
Aside from above findings, & as obiter dictum, it could have

been a different story & findings if DC OMARY(PW2) had filed a
suit under “Order I rule 8” or order III rule 2(a) of [Cap 33 R.E
2002], in a civil court of competent jurisdiction;
For Easy reference, the above orders refer to Representative

suit & Representation in court by Recognised Agent.
Any ways, that is mere observation which is secondary to the

trial before hand.
In fine, & in regard of the totality of foregoing findings, I hold

& find, TUMAIN EDWIN not guilty, I thus acquit him u/s 235(1)
of The criminal Procedure Act [Cap 20 R.E 2002], herein after
to be referred as “CPA”
It is so ordained.
T.SWAI
RM1
14TH/05/2018
Page 5 of 6
ORDER:
(1) The two sureties for Accused person are today relieved
or discharged of their obligations as surety.
R/A:
Is Explained, that is;-
(1) “45” days for Republic being preceded by “30” days

Notice.
(2) “45” days for DW1 being preceded by “10” days Notice
T.SWAI
RM1
14th/05/2018
Page 6 of 6

Polisi Ni Washenzi, Waonevu Na Wasenge

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Polisi Ni Washenzi, Waonevu Na Wasenge

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Polisi Ni Washenzi, Waonevu Na Wasenge

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MLELE

CRIMINAL CASE NO.22/2018

TUMAIN S/O EDWIN ........................................ACCUSED

28TH/02/2018 & 14TH/05/2018

“... Polisi ni washenzi, waonevu, wasenge ...”

The said seditious phrase is on the charge, which is subject

As per wording of the said charge, those terms were uttered by

The prosecution, paraded to this court three police witnesses

Then, after the arrest of JOSEPH DOMINICK, he was matched

DC VITUSI & DC OMARY then matched out from the Police

These two prosecution witnesses testified further that, just in

DC OMARY (PW2), loudly informed the riders that, their fellow,

According to DC OMARY (PW2), the crowd vacated the place

On his part, TUMAIN EDWIN, (DW1), maintained his

Inspector Baraka appeared as Public Prosecutor (PP), while,

The issue I’m Inclined to resolve is;-

- Whether accused person (DW1) is guilty as charged!!!.

The crux of the matter as per the charge is the phrase;

“Nyie Polisi ni Washenzi, Waonevu na Wasenge” was Levelled

However, unlike what the charge is coached for, or about, the

Neither DC VITUSI nor DC OMARY said those words were

The complained phrase beforehand does contain three “Nouns”

“Washenzi, Waonevu, Wasenge”

Therefore, the defence by TUMAIN EDWIN (DW1) that, he is

The prosecution has had statutory burden of proving

“Nyie Polisi ...” & not a specific police officer;

Aside from above findings, & as obiter dictum, it could have

For Easy reference, the above orders refer to Representative

Any ways, that is mere observation which is secondary to the

In fine, & in regard of the totality of foregoing findings, I hold

Is Explained, that is;-

(1) “45” days for Republic being preceded by “30” days

You might also like