The Appellants were convicted by the High Court for the
offences of carrying out fishing activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ) of the United Republic of Tanzania. The records indicate that on 16th
September, 2009 the accused persons appeared in the High Court for the
purposes of plea taking. But no pleas were taken because counsel for some of
the accused persons had filed a notice of preliminary objections. The trial
judge heard the objections relating to the territorial jurisdiction of the
trial court. She ruled that, they were premature and the same were struck out. The
case was adjourned for plea taking. The court could not take the pleas again
because one of the interpreters chosen and sworn on the first day of appearance
did not attend. The prosecution informed the court that the prosecution had,
earlier that morning, filed the consent of the DPP. The accused persons
submitted that the proceedings could not have been commenced prior to obtaining
the consent. The trial court ruled that the objection was not only premature,
but also lacked substance because under the law, the consent could be produced
at any time even at the trial stage. The case was thereafter adjourned when the
accused persons’ pleas were taken. The issues for determination are, the
legality of the proceedings before the High Court and whether the proceedings
for the institution of the trial of the Appellants was properly consented to by
the DPP.