Wakilii

Bazil v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 027-2018)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2024] AfCHPR 27 · 2024 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights following dismissal of criminal appeal by the Court of Appeal of Tanzania
Decision
Application partly allowed; conviction upheld but sentence to be vacated and rehearing on sentencing ordered with judicial discretion; Respondent State ordered to repeal mandatory death penalty and remove hanging as method of execution

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights held that Tanzania did not violate the applicant's right to a fair trial under Article 7(1) of the African Charter, as the domestic courts properly evaluated evidence and the applicant was represented by counsel. However, the Court found violations of the right to life (Article 4) due to the mandatory nature of the death penalty, and the right to dignity (Article 5) because execution by hanging is inherently degrading. Tanzania was ordered to repeal mandatory death penalty provisions, vacate the sentence, rehear sentencing with judicial discretion, and remove hanging as a method of execution.

Outcome

Application partly allowed; conviction upheld but sentence to be vacated and rehearing on sentencing ordered with judicial discretion; Respondent State ordered to repeal mandatory death penalty and remove hanging as method of execution

Facts

On 21 September 2008, the Applicant and his father-in-law killed Ms Magdalena Andrew, a person with albinism, using a machete. They were arrested and charged with murder on 26 November 2015. On 27 October 2016, the High Court of Tanzania at Bukoba convicted both of murder and sentenced them to death by hanging. The Applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania on 31 July 2017. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on 4 September 2018, finding that despite minor inconsistencies in prosecution witness testimonies, the substance was consistent and DNA evidence corroborated eyewitness testimony proving the Applicant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Applicant then filed this application to the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights on 22 October 2018.

Issues

  1. Whether there were contradictions in the evidence submitted by the prosecution witnesses such that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
  2. Whether the mandatory imposition of the death penalty violates the right to life under Article 4 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
  3. Whether execution by hanging violates the right to dignity under Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.

Orders

  • Application admissible.
  • Respondent State did not violate the Applicant's right to have his cause heard under Article 7(1) of the Charter regarding his conviction.
  • Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to life under Article 4 of the Charter in relation to the mandatory imposition of the death penalty.
  • Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to inherent dignity under Article 5 of the Charter in relation to the method of execution by hanging.
  • Applicant's prayers for reparations dismissed.
  • Respondent State to remove the mandatory death penalty from its laws within six months of notification.
  • Respondent State to vacate the sentence, remove the Applicant from death-row, and rehear his case on sentencing through a procedure that allows judicial discretion within one year of notification.
  • Respondent State to remove hanging from its laws as the method of execution within six months of notification.
  • Respondent State to publish this Judgment within three months on the websites of the Judiciary and the Ministry for Constitutional and Legal Affairs, accessible for at least one year.
  • Respondent State to submit a report on execution of orders within six months of notification and thereafter every six months until full implementation.
  • Each Party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Fair Trial — Evaluation of Evidence — Appellate Review of Factual Findings
An appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's findings on matters of evidence unless there is misdirection, as the trial court is better placed to assess witness credibility and evaluate evidence presented before it.
Fair Trial — Presumption of Innocence — Standard of Proof
A fair trial requires that the imposition of a sentence in a criminal offence, particularly a heavy prison sentence, be based on strong and credible evidence, reflecting the right to the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
Right to Life — Mandatory Death Penalty — Judicial Discretion
The mandatory imposition of the death penalty under a law that does not allow any discretion to the judicial officer constitutes a violation of the right to life protected under Article 4 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
Right to Dignity — Method of Execution — Death by Hanging
The execution of the death penalty by hanging constitutes a violation of the right to inherent dignity protected under Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, as hanging is inherently degrading.
Reparations — State Obligations — Legislative Reform
Where a State is found to have violated human rights through mandatory death penalty provisions and execution by hanging, the State must repeal the mandatory death penalty from its laws, vacate existing sentences, rehear cases on sentencing with judicial discretion, and remove hanging as a method of execution.

Legislation cited (21)

  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 6(2)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 22
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 27(1)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 28(7)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 34(6)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 4
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 5
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(6)
  • Rules of Court Rule 9(2)
  • Rules of Court Rule 32(2)
  • Rules of Court Rule 49(1)
  • Rules of Court Rule 50(1)
  • Rules of Court Rule 50(2)
  • Rules of Court Rule 63(1)
  • Rules of Court Rule 70(3)
  • Constitutive Act of the African Union Article 3(h)
  • Charter of the United Nations

Cases cited (25)

  • Andrew Ambrose Cheusi v. United Republic of Tanzania (26 June 2020) 4 AfCLR 219
  • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v. Libya (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 153
  • Robert Richard v. United Republic of Tanzania (2 December 2021) 5 AfCLR 822
  • Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (20 November 2015) 1 AfCLR 465
  • Kennedy Owino Onyachi and Charles John Mwanini Njoka v. United Republic of Tanzania (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 65
  • Jibu Amir alias Mussa and Said Ally Mangaya v. United Republic of Tanzania (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 629
  • Abdallah Sospeter Mabomba v. United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 017/2017)
  • Mohamed Abubakari v. Tanzania (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 599
  • Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and 9 Others v. Tanzania (18 March 2016) 1 AfCLR 507
  • Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso (5 December 2014) 1 AfCLR 314
  • Peter Joseph Chacha v. Tanzania (28 March 2014) 1 AfCLR 398
  • Deogratius Nicolaus Jeshi v. United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 017/2016)
  • Diocles Williams v. United Republic of Tanzania (21 September 2018) 2 AfCLR 426
  • Majid Goa v. United Republic of Tanzania (2019) 3 AfCLR 498
  • Ally Rajabu and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 539
  • Amini Juma v. United Republic of Tanzania (30 September 2021) 5 AfCLR 431
  • Gozbert Henerico v. United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 056/2016)
  • Romward William v. United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 030/2016)
  • Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 202
  • Ghati Mwita v. United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 012/2019)
  • Chrizant John v. United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 049/2016)
  • Legal and Human Rights Centre and Tanzania Human Rights Defenders' Coalition v. United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 039/2020)
  • Lucien Ikili Rashidi v. United Republic of Tanzania (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 13
  • Anudo Ochieng Anudo v. United Republic of Tanzania (22 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 248
  • Shija Juma v. United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 028/2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Bazil v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 027-2018) [2024] AfCHPR 27 (13 November 2024)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.