15 y.o. jailed for life. Now African Court orders reparations for 'lost youth'

17 October 2019 · Carmel Rickard

Two cases involving convictions and heavy sentences for rape have been heard by the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Both cases originate in Tanzania and both show that legal rights of the accused were not observed by the state. In one, the accused was not given free legal representation though he faced a mandatory 30 years behind bars. In the other, an appeal was filed three days after sentence, but it took almost 16 years before the authorities provided the records needed for the appeal.

Read the Mallya judgment

Read the Goa judgment

The case of Benedicto Mallya tells a story that will distress anyone with a human rights conscience.

Even if Mallya had not ultimately been exonerated, his case would still be a poor reflection on the legal system of his home country, Tanzania.

At the time of sentence he was just 15. Nothing in the judgment of the African Court indicates that he was treated any differently from an adult accused by the Tanzanian justice system.

He spent well over 15 years trying to enforce his right to an appeal: the Tanzanian authorities simply failed to help him obtain a copy of the original judgment and the court record from his trial in the district court, Moshi, even though he filed for an appeal three days after his conviction in 2000.

It was only once he lodged an application with the African Court in September 2015, that the Tanzanian authorities stirred. Five months after filing his complaint with that court, he received the copies of the record and the judgment he had been trying to access for 15 years.

The high court in Moshi then called for the records and ordered a hearing of the appeal. Mallya was notified and on 22 February 2016, he attended his appeal. The high court expressed doubt about evidence relied on by the district court, allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, set aside the sentence and ordered his release.

His conviction overturned, Mallya continued his action at the African Court, saying that his right to appeal had been violated, along with his right to a fair and expeditious trial, not to mention his right to equality before the law.

In its judgment, the court said that the appeal sought by Mallya might have been available in theory, but in reality he could not access it. The court also pointed out that Tanzania, like other states, was obliged to ensure that people ‘enjoy the fundamental guarantees’ of court access; and found that Tanzania violated Mallya’s appeal rights.

The court also found that for a case that was not complicated, ‘there was an inordinate and unexplained delay of over 15 years’ before the appeal was heard. His right to a fair and expeditious trial had thus also been violated.

Mallya’s third claim was that his right to liberty had been violated as well, since the authorities failed to give him the documents he needed to bring an appeal. Tanzania did not agree, saying that it had acted in good faith by not opposing Mallya’s appeal and releasing him. In its view, ‘the matter has been finalised’.

In the court’s view, simply freeing Mallya did not cancel out the state’s obligation for failing to ensure that his appeal could be heard timeously, and held that Mallya’s right to liberty had indeed been violated.

Unsurprisingly, Mallya asked for reparations and ‘just compensation’. The state on the other hand, argued that it acted in good faith by releasing Mallya, and that this was ‘sufficient reparation’. To this, the court responded: ‘Given the unjust incarceration of (Mallya) for almost 16 years, the better part of his youth is already lost and he has also been prevented from enjoying other rights … including the right to education, the right to family, right to work, right to privacy ….’ Further, he suffered ‘moral prejudice’ including emotional and psychological trauma.

Having found that reparations are due to Mallya, the court will rule on both reparations and costs at a date still to be determined.

The second case, of Majid Goa, also involves a conviction of raping a minor. But in this case, the sentence was 30 years. Despite complaints by Goa about the way the matter was handled by the Tanzanian justice system, the African Court found no error or miscarriage of justice that required the court to interfere.

However, there had been a problem about legal defence for Goa. He was not given free legal help during the trial and appeal. Tanzania argued that the African Charter was not specific about whether the right to defence included state funding of that legal defence. But the African Court has, in earlier decisions, interpreted the provision to mean that there was a right to free legal help. Where the accused is indigent and charged with a serious offence that carries a severe penalty, there was no need for the accused to specifically ask for representation.

Goa was charged with a serious offence, carrying a ‘severe mandatory punishment of 30 year’s imprisonment’. He should thus have been given free legal help, whether or not he asked for it.

As his free trial rights had been violated, the court awarded him TZS300,000 in reparations. Although Goa asked the court to order his release, the court refused to do so, saying the fact that he did not have free legal help did not affect the outcome of the trial.

The African Court is based in Tanzania which explains why so many of its cases originate from that state. But it also means that shortcomings in Tanzania’s justice system – like the failure to provide legal defence, and the shocking delay in hearing an appeal in these two cases – are more easily brought to the attention of an outside arbiter. Awkward and irritating to the authorities, perhaps, but it could be viewed differently: as a prod ultimately leading to a justice system that is a model for the rest of the continent.

Carmel Rickard

About the author

Recent articles by Carmel Rickard

‘No justification for the unjustifiable’: Lesotho’s ombud slams grand-scale torture, assault in Maseru prison

22 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Lesotho’s national ombud, Tlotliso Angelina Polaki, has issued a scathing report on massive-scale torture and assaults that took place in Maseru’s central correctional institution during December 2023, leaving about 95% of the inmates of the prison injured, one dead and one who is now wheelchair-bound and will never walk again.

Major court decision on image rights benefits Ugandan soccer players

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Members of Uganda’s national soccer team from the period around 2007/8 have just been awarded a payout against MTN Uganda by the commercial court. The telecom giant had a year-long contract with Proline, the players’ originating development soccer club, allowing it to use the players’ images for advertising. But MTN had continued to use their images even after that contract expired on the basis that it had a sponsorship agreement with Fufa, soccer’s governing body in Uganda. The players then challenged MTN in court, through Proline, and have now won a significant damages award. But the judgment exposed some serious flaws in the way that Fufa has approached the question of using the image rights of its senior players, and the court commented that this is a ‘case study’ for why Fufa needs to sort out its contractual arrangements with senior players.

Executive interference in Ugandan court decisions continues – this time by the justice minister

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Uganda’s minister of justice, Norbert Mao, has taken a leaf straight from the book of the country’s president, Yoweri Museveni. This week, the minister wrote to the principal judge of the Ugandan high court, asking that the judge directly intervene in a matter that has been brought to his attention by an MP on behalf of a constituent. Mao asked for the ‘immediate administrative intervention’ in the matter by the principal judge. Earlier this year, Museveni wrote a similar letter to the chief justice of Uganda, also requesting intervention in a matter, and the CJ later indicated that this was not the first time it had happened.

Is rape by family members treated too lightly by the law?

19 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

The high court has sent the case of a Malawian teenager, charged with raping his 89-year-old grandmother, back to the magistrate’s court for a possible re-trial because the court had wrongly prosecuted a case of rape instead of incest. If convicted in a re-trial, however, Malawi’s incest law could see the accused sentenced to a mere five years. Malawi’s penal code provides for a significant difference between the sentence to be imposed when a man rapes a close family member, and in a case where the two are not related. When they are unrelated, the code provides that a rape offender ‘shall be liable to be punished with death or with imprisonment for life’ (However, Malawi has had what amounts to a moratorium on carrying out the death penalty since 1992.) By contrast, ‘incest by males’, is categorised in the code as a ‘felony’, and anyone convicted ‘shall be liable for imprisonment for five years’. There is an exception: if it is proved ‘that the female person is under the age of 16, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for life’.

Prominent SA advocates lose battle over conviction in Namibian courts for working without a permit, misleading immigration officials

6 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Two prominent South African advocates have just lost their last hope of squashing their convictions in the Namibian courts. Johannesburg advocates, Mike Hellens SC and Dawie Joubert SC, had been found guilty on two counts, first, working as legal practitioners without an employment permit, and second, giving false or misleading information to immigration officers when they entered the country in 2019. Though they had gone to Namibia to appear in court in a bail application, they told the immigration officials they were there for a ‘visit’ and for a ‘meeting’. Both appealed against their conviction but they had also asked for a judicial review of the decision. In the high court they lost their appeal but won on the review. The outcome in both matters were taken to the apex supreme court for a final word. In December 2023, they lost their appeal at the supreme court. What would that same court say when the state appealed against the review finding? The supreme court has now given its answer: it found the review, that had favoured Hellens and Joubert, was wrongly decided, and set it aside, awarding costs against the two advocates in both the high court and the supreme court.