Corruption in Tanzania: The Case for Circumstantial Evidence By ...

The law of evidence in medieval times did not contemplate corruption as understood today. Therefore, the law of evidence emphasised direct evidence as opposed to circumstantial evidence. Today the same contextual understanding—to give preference to direct evidence or the ‘eyewitness paradigm’—has not changed. And yet practice has shown that there has been limited successful prosecution of corruption cases to conviction through the use of that traditional common-law paradigm. It is therefore in this context that this book advocates for the utility of circumstantial evidence in corruption cases. This is a necessary departure from the status quo—the common-law tradition of law of evidence, which over-emphasises the reliability of direct evidence. If corruption cases are to be prosecuted successfully and the verdict of guilt entered, the paradigm shift to circumstantial evidence is the immediate alternative.

Production of evidence in court, whether in criminal or civil proceedings, employs both direct and circumstantial evidence depending on the nature of the case itself. The law of evidence does not discriminate the application of these two types of evidence in criminal and civil proceedings. Notwithstanding this fact, the standard of proof in criminal proceedings is higher than in civil proceedings; in the former, it must be beyond reasonable doubt, while in the latter, it is on the balance of probability.

This book addresses the issue of the effectiveness of the existing legal framework (legislative and interpretative) that is used in detecting, investigating, and prosecuting those alleged to have committed acts of corruption in Tanzania. It specifically examines the fundamental problem of overreliance on ‘direct evidence’ approaches distinct from ‘circumstantial evidence’ approaches in gathering evidence and prosecuting and securing convictions in corruption cases. The book provides what is considered to be strong support for the view that there is indeed a powerful case for Tanzania’s legal framework to be oriented in favour of circumstantial evidence approaches in order to improve the effectiveness of the contribution of the legal system to the fight against corruption.