THE High Court’s Corruption and Economic Crime Division has ordered drug dealer Wolfgang Lwamtonga to remain behind bars for 25 years for trafficking in heroin hydrochloride weighing 2.49 kilogrammes.
Judge Elinaza Luvanda ruled against the accused recently after holding that the prosecution proved the economic case beyond reasonable doubt, having taken into consideration the evidence tendered by witnesses.
“Therefore, the accused is found guilty and is convicted for the offence of trafficking in narcotic drugs,” the judge ruled. Before imposing the sentence, the prosecution led by Senior State Attorney Clamence Kato had asked the court to have the accused person given a deserving sentence.
The trial attorney told the court that imposing severe sentence was essential as narcotic drugs have adverse effects to the entire community. On the other side, Advocate Ole Mkulagwa for the accused had pleaded for lenient sentence.
He submitted that his client was a first offender, has been in custody for four years and he was young, thus the nation still needs him for economic development. The counsel further argued that the accused person has dependents, notably a wife and a child, who both depend on him.
After considering the submissions by both parties, the judge was of the view that the accused person deserved a lenient sentence and be accommodated under Tanzania Sentencing Manual for Judicial Officers, which stipulate a minimum of twenty years and maximum of thirty years to the offender.
According to section 15(l) (c) of the Drugs Control and Enforcement Act No. 5 of 2015 as amended, the penal for the offence under which the accused person was charged with is life imprisonment.
However, Judge Luvanda took into consideration the Tanzania Sentencing Manual for Judiciary Officers, which scale down to 30 years’ maximum and 20 years minimum and the submissions presented by both parties relating to mitigation and aggravating factors.
“In view of the fact that the accused is a first offender, he is sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment,” he declared. Before reaching the conclusion, the judge evaluated the evidence tendered by both parties into trial and was satisfied that the offence in question was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The counsel for the accused had submitted, among others, that prosecution witnesses gave contradictory evidence in relation to the colour of the narcotic drugs, which were allegedly seized from the bag of his client wrapped in two packets.