The accused appeared in the Resident Magistrate’s Court at Sokoine Drive (City). Photo: Courtesy
Tanzania’s Officer’s Mishap in Court: Prostitution Case Against Five Falters, Casting Doubt on Charges
By Adonis Byemelwa
In a riveting session at the Sokoine Drive Resident Magistrate’s Court, the second witness in a prostitution case involving five defendants revealed that the suspects were arrested based on their attire and the time and location they were found by the police.
However, the witness, a police constable from Mburahati Police Station identified as WP PC Tunusuru Malungula, found himself in a tight spot when asked to define prostitution based on these indicators.
The cross-examination by defense lawyers Peter Madeleka, Jebra Kambole, and Maria Mushi on Thursday, June 27, 2024, exposed significant gaps in the officer’s testimony. PC Tunusuru admitted he did not know the legal definition of prostitution and was unaware of any law specifying clothing as an indicator of such activity or the time of day that someone found on the street could be deemed a prostitute.
The accused, Mariam Yusufu Mkinde (25) of Magomeni, Mwazani Nassoro (25) of Kigogo, Mwanaidi Salum (25) of Mabibo, Faudhia Hassan (35) of Ubungo, and Tatu Omary (40) of Ubungo, face charges of public indecency for prostitution under Section 176(a) of the Penal Code, Cap 16, as revised in 2022.
They were reportedly apprehended on June 17 in Manzese Tip Top, Ubungo District, Dar es Salaam, for allegedly standing in public wearing inappropriate clothing with the intent to engage in prostitution.
During his primary testimony, led by State Attorneys Winfrida Ouko and Tumaini Mafuru, PC Tunusuru stated that he and five other officers arrested the defendants during a night patrol. He claimed they were arrested at 9 PM in a well-lit commercial area because their attire and actions suggested prostitution. Specifically, he noted that Mwazani was wearing a very tight outfit that outlined her figure.
However, under cross-examination, PC Tunusuru struggled to substantiate his claims:
Defense Lawyer Madeleka: “Witness, can you remind the court of your religion?”
Witness: “Muslim.”
Madeleka: “You swore on the Quran, correct?”
Witness: “Yes.”
Madeleka: “Can you recite Surat Yasin (Chapter 6) for the court?”
Witness: “I don’t know it.”
Madeleka: “You are a police officer, right?”
Witness: “Yes.”
Madeleka: “Police officers are identified by their uniform and badge, correct?”
Witness: “Yes.”
Madeleka: “Outside of these identifiers, it’s hard to recognize an officer?”
Witness: “No.”
Madeleka: “Did you wear your uniform today?”
Witness: “No.”
Madeleka: “Did you show your badge to the court?”
Witness: “No.”
Madeleka: “How can the court trust you are a police officer without proof?”
Witness: “They can’t.”
Madeleka: “Did you and the five other officers arrest these defendants?”
Witness: “Yes.”
Madeleka: “Were there female officers present?”
Witness: “Yes, two.”
Madeleka: “So, you only arrested Mwazani?”
Witness: “Yes.”
Madeleka: “Who arrested the others?”
Witness: “I don’t remember.”
Madeleka: “Do you know the time frame when someone can be considered engaging in prostitution based on when they’re found on the street?”
Witness: “No.”
Madeleka: “Do you know if selling one’s body is illegal?”
Witness: “No.”
Madeleka: “What about the buyers?”
Witness: “I don’t know.”
Madeleka: “Is wearing a tight outfit a crime?”
Witness: “It’s inappropriate.”
Madeleka: “According to what law?”
Witness: “I don’t know.”
The defense also questioned the credibility of the arrest, pointing out that the constable failed to document the arrest details or provide necessary evidence like the suspects’ clothing in court.
The session highlighted significant procedural lapses and the witness’s lack of legal understanding, raising doubts about the integrity of the arrest and the charges. The trial, presided over by Chief Magistrate Rachael Kasebele, will continue on Friday, June 28, 2024.
