Facts
The appellant was charged with various offences of obtaining advantage for inadequate consideration contrary to section 6 and knowingly giving a false account in relation to property contrary to section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1971. It was alleged that the appellant who was the Marketing Manager with the Singida Regional Trading Company, a public corporation, acquired various properties by using his position as a public officer. The trial magistrate held that he had acquired the property corruptly because he could give no satisfactory account of how he had acquired the properties. The conviction was quashed on appeal
Held: (i) To prove corruption it is not enough simply to show that the property was acquired
illegally or through discreditable means because such property may not necessarily be corruptly acquired.
(ii) failure by the accused to explain how he acquired property will not in itself justify an inference that it was corruptly acquired.
(iii) an official found in possession of property apparently disproportionate to his means may have acquired it by corruption, or in some way which is illegal or discreditable.
(iv) before the burden of proof shifts to the defence in offences involving being in possession of property corruptly acquired there must be reasonable suspicion of corruption or unlawful acquisition.
(v) it is not every witness that gives unfavourable evidence that can be declared hostile; for a witness to become hostile it must be shown that he prevaricates or suppresses the truth.
Case Information
Appeal allowed.
No comments:
Post a Comment