Wakilii

Lei v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 066-2019)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2026] AfCHPR 2 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights alleging human rights violations arising from criminal conviction and sentence in Tanzania
Decision
Application dismissed; Applicant remains convicted and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment

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 Song Lei's rights under the African Charter. The Court found that the domestic proceedings, including evidence assessment, interpreter provision, bail denial, and sentencing, complied with international human rights standards. The Court dismissed all allegations, holding that the Applicant failed to prove violations of his rights to fair trial, dignity, and equality before the law.

Outcome

Application dismissed; Applicant remains convicted and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment

Facts

On 6 November 2015, Song Lei, a Chinese businessman, was arrested with three other Chinese nationals at the Tanzania-Malawi border after police found 11 pieces of rhinoceros horns valued at USD 418,000 in a secret compartment of his car. All four men were charged with leading organized crime, unlawful dealing in trophies, and unlawful possession of government trophy. On 17 December 2015, the Magistrate's Court convicted all four and sentenced them to 15 years on the first count, a fine of USD 836,000 or 3 years on the second count, and 20 years plus a fine of USD 4,180,000 on the third count. On appeal, the High Court acquitted the three co-accused but upheld Lei's conviction on the second and third counts. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision on 30 August 2019. Lei then filed an application to the African Court alleging human rights violations.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to have his cause heard under Article 7(1) of the African Charter in relation to the evidence upon which the conviction was based.
  2. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to defence under Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter, read jointly with Article 14(3)(a) and (f) of the ICCPR, regarding the competence of the interpreter.
  3. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to be heard under Article 7(1) of the African Charter, read jointly with Article 9(3) of the ICCPR, concerning the denial of bail.
  4. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to dignity under Article 5 of the African Charter with regard to the sentence imposed.
  5. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's rights to equality before the law and equal protection of the law under Article 3(1) and (2) of the African Charter.

Orders

  • Objection to jurisdiction dismissed.
  • Court has jurisdiction.
  • Objection to admissibility dismissed.
  • Application is admissible.
  • Respondent State did not violate Applicant's right to be heard under Article 7(1) of the Charter regarding the manner in which proceedings were conducted.
  • Respondent State did not violate Applicant's right under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, read jointly with Article 14(3)(a) and (f) of the ICCPR, regarding the right to an interpreter.
  • Respondent State did not violate Applicant's right to be heard under Article 7(1) of the Charter, read jointly with Article 9(3) of the ICCPR, concerning the right to bail.
  • Respondent State did not violate Applicant's right to dignity under Article 5 of the Charter regarding the sentence imposed.
  • Respondent State did not violate Applicant's rights to equality before the law and equal protection of the law under Article 3(1) and (2) of the Charter.
  • Prayers for reparations dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Fair Trial — Appellate Jurisdiction — African Court's Role in Reviewing Domestic Proceedings
The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights is not an appellate body with respect to decisions of national courts, but this does not preclude it from examining relevant proceedings in national courts to determine whether they are in accordance with the standards set out in the African Charter or any other human rights instruments ratified by the State concerned.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Fair Trial — Right to Interpreter — Language Understanding Requirement
The right to an interpreter under Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter, read jointly with Article 14(3)(a) and (f) of the ICCPR, does not require interpretation in the accused person's own language but rather in any language that the accused understands, the purpose being to ensure the accused is aware of the charges and can participate in proceedings without necessarily having full mastery of the language used.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Bail — Individualised Assessment — Nature of Charge Not Sole Factor
The decision whether to grant bail to an accused demands an individualised assessment taking into account the unique facts of each case and the specific circumstances of the applicant. While considering the nature of the charges is relevant, it should not be the sole determining factor for denial or granting of bail. Granting or denying bail should not be a legally predetermined outcome based solely on the nature of the crime.
Evidence — Evaluation — Domestic Courts' Margin of Appreciation
Domestic courts enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in evaluating the probative value of particular evidence. As an international human rights court, the African Court cannot take up this role from domestic courts and investigate the details and particularities of evidence used in domestic proceedings, though it can intervene to assess whether domestic proceedings, including assessment of evidence, were conducted in consonance with international human rights standards.
Human Rights — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Constitutional Petition as Extraordinary Remedy
Where criminal proceedings against an applicant have been determined by the highest appellate court, the Respondent State is deemed to have had the opportunity to redress the violations alleged by the applicant. A constitutional petition procedure is an extraordinary remedy that applicants are not required to exhaust for purposes of satisfying the exhaustion of local remedies requirement.

Legislation cited (21)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3(2)
  • 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 7(1)(c)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • 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 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 34(6)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 9(3)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14(3)(a)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14(3)(f)
  • Economic and Organized Crime Control Act (2002)
  • Wildlife Conservation Act No. 5 (2009) s.83(2)
  • Wildlife Conservation Act No. 5 (2009) s.84(1)
  • Wildlife Conservation Act No. 5 (2009) s.86(1)(2)(c)(ii)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Article 30(3)
  • Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act s.4
  • Criminal Procedure Act s.211(1)

Cases cited (23)

  • Andrew Ambrose Cheusi v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 004/2015)
  • Kalebi Elisamehe v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 005/2015)
  • Diocles William v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 016/2015)
  • Armand Guéhi v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 001/2015)
  • Ernest Francis Mtingwi v Republic of Malawi (Application No. 003/2012)
  • Kennedy Ivan v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 002/2015)
  • Rajabu Yusuph v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 036/2017)
  • Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v Republic of Rwanda (Application No. 003/2014)
  • Beneficiaries of late Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (Application No. 013/2011)
  • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Republic of Kenya (Application No. 006/2012)
  • Mohamed Abubakari v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 007/2013)
  • Mohamed Selemani Marwa v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 014/2016)
  • Sébastien Germain Ajavon v Republic of Benin (Application No. 065/2019)
  • Kijiji Isiaga v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 032/2015)
  • Yahaya Zumo Makame v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 023/2016)
  • Nzigiyimana Zabron v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 051/2016)
  • Husain v Italy (Application No. 18913/03)
  • John Mwita v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 044/2016)
  • Legal & Human Rights Centre and Tanzania Human Rights Defenders Coalition v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 039/2020)
  • Sijaona Chacha Machera v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 035/2017)
  • Yassin Rashid Maige v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 018/2017)
  • Edison Simon Mwombeki v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 030/2018)
  • Tembo Hussein v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 001/2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lei v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 066-2019) [2026] AfCHPR 2 (6 March 2026)
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.