Tanzania: Court sets free EPA theft suspects

ALL was smiles for two businessmen, Jonathan Munisi and Japhet Lema, when a Dar es Salaam Court yesterday acquitted them of their alleged involvement in the theft of over 2.6bn/- from the External payment Arrears (EPA) account of the Bank of Tanzania (BoT).

Sitting at the Kisutu Resident Magistrate’s Court, a panel comprising Judge Beatrice Mutungi, District Registrar Amir Msumi and Deputy Director of Resident and District Courts Eddie Fussi, found that the two had no role in the theft of the money.

The panel ruled that the prosecution failed to produce tangible evidence, proving beyond reasonable doubts the charges the two businessmen were facing.

Munisi and Lema were charged with conspiracy to commit an offence, forging a deed of assignment for the said money, uttering false documents and obtaining money by false pretences from the Central Bank.

In its judgment, the panel found that the prosecution produced no evidence to show that the two had conspired to commit the offences and that they jointly forged the deed of assignment that was tendered to the BoT for the purpose of getting the money.

They ruled that the evidence produced by the prosecution showed that Munisi had not participated in any step for preparation of the document in question while the move by Lema to append his signature on the deed of assignment was not enough to construe forgery.

“It has not been proved that what the first accused (Lema) did had been with intent to deceit. For the second accused (Munisi) there is nowhere he is incriminated,” the panel observed.

Regarding obtaining money by false pretences, the panel said that having concluded that forgery could not be proved according to the evidence produced there was also no sufficient evidence to prove the offence of obtaining money by false pretences.

They noted that there was no doubt that Lema had requested the money from the Bank of Tanzania and was given, but there was no evidence to show that the whole process was exhibited with intent to defraud.

“The delivered deed of assignment has not been proved to be forged. It has not been positively established that the accused persons have a dubious relations,” the panel concluded.

Regarding the offence of uttering a forged document, the panel held that having found that there was insufficient evidence to prove forgery, it followed that the charge regarding uttering forged document cannot be proved as well.

“In final analysis, the accused persons are hereby acquitted in respect of all counts. They are to be released forthwith unless held with other lawful cause,” the panel ruled.

Source: Daily News