Wakilii

Noriega v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 013-2018)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2025] AfCHPR 30 · 2025 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 exhaustion of domestic remedies in Tanzania, where the Applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to mandatory death by hanging
Decision
Application partly allowed. Death sentence to be revoked and Applicant removed from death row. Respondent State ordered to conduct rehearing on sentencing without mandatory death penalty provisions. Respondent State ordered to amend laws to remove mandatory death penalty and hanging as execution method. Compensation awarded for moral prejudice.

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 violated the applicant's rights to dignity, fair trial, and life. The Court found violations in the failure to investigate police brutality, the provision of ineffective legal representation where the same advocate represented both prosecution and defence, and the unreasonable ten-year trial duration. The Court held that the mandatory death penalty without judicial discretion violated the right to life, and execution by hanging violated the right to dignity. The Court ordered Tanzania to remove mandatory death penalty provisions and hanging as an execution method from its laws, to conduct a rehearing on sentencing, and awarded the applicant TZS 1,000,000 in moral damages.

Outcome

Application partly allowed. Death sentence to be revoked and Applicant removed from death row. Respondent State ordered to conduct rehearing on sentencing without mandatory death penalty provisions. Respondent State ordered to amend laws to remove mandatory death penalty and hanging as execution method. Compensation awarded for moral prejudice.

Facts

Emmanuel Yusufu Noriega, a Tanzanian national, was arrested on 4 November 1995 for murdering Ismail Omary Mkangwa on 3 November 1995 at Ilagala Village, Kigoma. The Applicant alleged he was intoxicated and under the influence of drugs when he attacked the deceased and severed his head. He confessed to police that he killed the deceased while angry, intoxicated, and under the influence of smoking marijuana. When brought before the Justice of the Peace on 6 November 1995, wounds were observed on his mouth and abdomen, but no investigation was ordered into how he sustained them. The Applicant alleged a policeman inflicted the wound on his mouth when he confessed. He was tried and convicted of murder by the High Court of Tanzania at Tabora on 18 March 2005 and sentenced to mandatory death by hanging. His appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on 27 October 2009. His application for review was dismissed on 18 August 2017. The same advocate who represented the prosecution during preliminary hearings later represented the Applicant during his appeal, which the Court of Appeal noted was inappropriate and unethical but did not remedy. The trial process lasted over ten years from arrest to final Court of Appeal decision.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law under Article 3 of the Charter.
  2. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to dignity by failing to investigate alleged police brutality and by the Justice of the Peace's failure to order investigations into the Applicant's wounds.
  3. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to a fair trial by failing to provide effective legal representation under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter.
  4. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to be tried within a reasonable time under Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter.
  5. Whether the court assessors' failure to examine witnesses violated the Applicant's right to a fair trial under Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter.
  6. Whether the mandatory imposition of the death penalty violated the Applicant's right to life under Article 4 of the Charter.
  7. Whether the execution of the death penalty by hanging violated the Applicant's right to dignity under Article 5 of the Charter.

Orders

  • Dismissed the objection to material jurisdiction.
  • Declared that the Court has jurisdiction.
  • Declared the Application admissible.
  • Held that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant's right to equality and equal protection of the law under Article 3 of the Charter.
  • Held that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant's right to a fair trial regarding the failure of court assessors to examine witnesses under Article 7(1) of the Charter.
  • Held that the Respondent State violated the right to dignity under Article 5 of the Charter in relation to the Justice of the Peace's failure to order investigations into alleged abuse and police brutalisation.
  • Held that the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to a fair trial by failing to provide effective free legal assistance under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter as read with Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR.
  • Held that the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to a fair trial by failing to try him within a reasonable time under Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter.
  • Held that the 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.
  • Held that the Respondent State violated the right to dignity under Article 5 of the Charter in relation to the imposition of the death penalty by hanging.
  • Granted the Applicant's prayer for reparations for moral prejudice and awarded him TZS 1,000,000.
  • Ordered the Respondent State to pay the sum awarded free from tax within six months, failing which interest will accrue at the Central Bank of Tanzania rate.
  • Did not grant the Applicant's prayer for release.
  • Ordered the Respondent State to revoke the death sentence imposed on the Applicant and remove him from death row.
  • Ordered the Respondent State to take all necessary measures within six months to remove the mandatory imposition of the death penalty from its laws.
  • Ordered the Respondent State to take all necessary measures within six months to remove hanging from its laws as a method of execution of the death penalty.
  • Ordered the Respondent State to take all necessary measures within one year for the rehearing of the case on sentencing through a procedure that does not allow mandatory imposition of the death sentence and upholds judicial discretion.
  • Ordered the Respondent State to publish this judgment within three months on the websites of the Judiciary and the Ministry for Constitutional and Legal Affairs, ensuring accessibility for at least one year.
  • Ordered each Party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Right to Dignity — Duty to Investigate Allegations of Ill-Treatment
Once prima facie evidence has been established of ill treatment on an accused person, the burden automatically shifts to the State to prove the contrary. Judicial officers bear a duty to provide adequate protection to arrested persons, to conduct investigations into how they sustained injuries, and to bring culprits to book.
Human Rights — Right to Dignity — Prohibition of Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
The prohibition of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 5 of the African Charter is absolute. Beating of an accused person by police authorities during arrest after confession constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited under Article 5 of the Charter.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Fair Trial — Effective Legal Representation
The right to be defended by counsel of one's choice is not absolute when counsel is provided through a free legal assistance scheme. The important consideration is whether the accused is provided with effective legal representation. Effective assistance of counsel comprises two aspects: defence counsel should not be restricted in representing the client, and counsel should not deprive a client of effective assistance by failing to provide competent representation adequate to ensure a fair trial.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Fair Trial — Conflict of Interest in Legal Representation
Where an advocate who represented the prosecution during preliminary hearings subsequently represents the accused during appeal proceedings, such conduct is inappropriate and unethical. The appellate court should not only reprimand the advocate but order that the accused be provided with another advocate to represent him, as justice should not only be done but be seen to be done.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Fair Trial — Right to be Tried Within a Reasonable Time
The right to be tried within a reasonable time is an important aspect of fair trial. There is no standard period considered as reasonable time for a court to dispose of a matter. Delays caused by lack of due diligence on the part of national authorities amount to a violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time. A period of ten years, ten months and sixteen days from commencement of trial to final appellate decision is unreasonable to process and finalise a case.
Constitutional Law — Right to Life — Mandatory Death Penalty
The imposition of the mandatory death penalty without allowing the judicial officer discretion to impose a different punishment taking into account the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the offender is a violation of the right to life under Article 4 of the African Charter.
Constitutional Law — Right to Dignity — Method of Execution of Death Penalty
Hanging a person as a method of implementing the death penalty is inherently degrading and encroaches upon the dignity of a person in respect of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Methods of execution must exclude suffering or involve the least suffering possible in cases where the death penalty is permissible.

Legislation cited (23)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
  • 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(1)(a)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(c)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(d)
  • 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 34(6)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14(3)(d)
  • United Nations Convention Against Torture Article 1
  • United Nations Convention Against Torture Article 12
  • Tanzania Criminal Procedure Act s.32
  • Tanzania Criminal Procedure Act s.244
  • Tanzania Criminal Procedure Act s.245
  • Tanzania Criminal Procedure Act s.248
  • Tanzania Criminal Procedure Act s.260
  • Tanzania Criminal Procedure Act s.284
  • Tanzania Evidence Act s.177
  • Tanzania Penal Code s.14(2)(b)
  • Tanzania Penal Code s.219(2)

Cases cited (45)

  • Andrew Ambrose Cheusi v United Republic of Tanzania (26 June 2020) 4 AfCLR 219
  • Daud Sumano Kilagela v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 017/2018)
  • Ernest Francis Mtingwi v Republic of Malawi (15 March 2013) 1 AfCLR 190
  • Kenedy Ivan v United Republic of Tanzania (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 48
  • Armand Guehi v United Republic of Tanzania (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 247
  • Nguza Viking and Johnson Nguza v United Republic of Tanzania (23 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 287
  • Tanganyika Law Society and Legal and Human Rights Centre v United Republic of Tanzania (14 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 34
  • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Republic of Kenya (26 May 2017) 2 AfCLR 9
  • Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (21 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 197
  • Igola Iguna v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 020/2017)
  • Sadick Marwa v United Republic of Tanzania (2 December 2021) 5 AfCLR 728
  • Alex Thomas v Tanzania (20 November 2015) 1 AfCLR 465
  • Amir Ramadhani v United Republic of Tanzania (11 May 2018) 2 AfCLR 344
  • Christopher Jonas v United Republic of Tanzania (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 101
  • Werema Wangoko Werema and Others v United Republic of Tanzania (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 520
  • Alfred Agbes Woyome v Republic of Ghana (28 June 2019) 3 AfCLR 235
  • Deogratius Nicolaus Jeshi v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 017/2016)
  • Habyalimana Augustino and Muburu Abdulkarim v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 015/2016)
  • Gabriel Shumba v Zimbabwe (Communication 288/04)
  • Huri-Laws v Nigeria (Communication 225/98)
  • Reuben Juma and Gawani Nkende v United Republic of Tanzania (Consolidated Application No. 015/2017 & 011/2018)
  • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Libya (2016) 1 AfCLR 153
  • Evodius Rutechura v United Republic of Tanzania (26 February 2021) 5 AfCLR 7
  • Gozbert Henerico v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 056/2016)
  • Strickland v Washington 466 U.S. 668 (1984)
  • Lafler v Cooper 566 U.S. (2012)
  • Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and Others v United Republic of Tanzania (18 March 2016) 1 AfCLR 507
  • Benedicto Daniel Mallya v United Republic of Tanzania (26 September 2019) 3 AfCLR 482
  • Marthine Christian Msuguri v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 052/2016)
  • Dominick Damian v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 048/2016)
  • XYZ v Republic of Benin (27 November 2020) 4 AfCLR 83
  • Makungu Misalaba v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 033/2016)
  • 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
  • Sébastien Germain Ajavon v Republic of Benin (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 196
  • Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (5 June 2015) 1 AfCLR 258
  • Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila v United Republic of Tanzania (13 June 2014) 1 AfCLR 72
  • Léon Mugesera v Republic of Rwanda (27 November 2020) 4 AfCLR 834
  • Lucien Ikili Rashidi v United Republic of Tanzania (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 13
  • Ghati Mwita v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 012/2019)
  • Romward William v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 030/2016)
  • Mgosi Mwita Makungu v United Republic of Tanzania (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 550
  • Minani Evarist v United Republic of Tanzania (21 September 2018) 2 AfCLR 402
  • Nzigiyimana Zabron v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 051/2016)
  • Crospery Gabriel and Another v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 050/2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Noriega v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 013-2018) [2025] AfCHPR 30 (26 June 2025)
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.