Landmark Acquittal For Maria Ngoda As 22-Year Sentence Overturned In Wildlife Case.

By Adonis Byemelwa

In a groundbreaking development, the High Court of Tanzania Iringa Registry acquitted Maria Ngoda, who had been serving a 22-year prison sentence for the alleged possession of 12 pieces of antelope meat on November 3, 2023.

The Tanzania Women's Union (UWT) played a crucial role in facilitating her appeal, leading to her release.

The ruling party's Women's Union, CCM Tanzania, led by Chairwoman Mary Chatanda and Secretary-General Jokate Mwegelo, successfully championed Ngoda's cause, bringing joy and relief to the women from Iringa.

The judgment day on February 16 marked the culmination of efforts by the CCM union, which filed an appeal on behalf of Maria Ngoda, emphasizing their commitment to advocating for the underprivileged.

The Tanganyika Law Society (TLS) in the Iringa Region actively supported the case, naming 10 lawyers involved in the appeal process.

TLS Chairman Moses Ambindwile provided a statement, acknowledging the lawyers' dedication and the importance of offering legal assistance to vulnerable individuals.

Ngoda's initial sentencing on November 3, 2023, by Resident Magistrate Said Mkasiwa, sparked widespread debate on the legality and appropriateness of the decision.

TLS Chairman Ambindwile highlighted the economic sabotage case number 28 of 2022, expressing concern over the severe sentence imposed on a widow with four children for possessing antelope meat valued at Sh 900,000.

The legal community, led by lawyers like Dr. Rwezaula Kaijage, Frank Ngafumika, Barnabas Nyalusi, Jane Massey, Samson Rutebuka, Joshua Chusi, Innocent Kibadu, and Cosmas Kishamawe, rallied behind Ngoda.

TLS, UWT, and human rights advocates collectively supported the appeal, questioning the adequacy of wildlife conservation laws and urging a fair and just legal system that considers the circumstances and human rights of the accused.

Prominent Tanzanian lawyer Method Kimomogoro raised systemic concerns, pointing out a longstanding issue of wildlife conservation laws being enacted without due consideration for the human rights of citizens in proximity to protected areas.

The debate over wildlife-related legalities extended to social media, drawing parallels between Ngoda's sentence for antelope meat and an American couple, Josh and Sarah Bowmar, who faced public outrage for hunting a Tanzanian crocodile.

While Ngoda's case raised questions about the legality of imprisoning a woman over antelope meat, the Bowmars were cleared by the Tanzania Wildlife Management Authority (Tawa) after an extensive investigation.

The controversy surrounding the Bowmars erupted when they shared images and videos of their trophy—a massive crocodile—leading to debates on the ethics of trophy hunting and its impact on wildlife conservation.

In response to public concerns, Tawa's statement clarified that the crocodile hunting incident involving the Bowmars adhered to both local and international laws governing trophy hunting. According to Tawa, hunting activities, including crocodile hunting, are regulated by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

The statement assured the public that the hunt was conducted within the legal framework, with the crocodile exceeding the minimum length requirement and all necessary fees paid.

The Ngoda case and the Bowmars' acquittal underscore the complexities and debates surrounding wildlife-related legal issues, prompting discussions on the perceived discrepancies in legal consequences for different wildlife-related activities.

As social media discussions intensified, comparisons between Ngoda's antelope meat case and the Bowmars' crocodile hunting incident sparked debates on the fairness and consistency of legal consequences.

 Ngoda's imprisonment led many to question the legal system's priorities, especially in contrast to the Bowmars, who were deemed to have acted within the bounds of the law, shedding light on the intricate intersection of legalities, public perception, and wildlife conservation.Top of Form

Lawyer Frank Robert emphasized the legal aspect, noting that the applicable Section 86(2)(c)(ii), prescribes a fine three times the value of the contraband or imprisonment not exceeding 20 years when the value does not exceed Sh1 million.

The discrepancy between the punishment for wildlife-related offenses and other economic crimes sparked discussions about the proportionality of sentences.

The court proceedings involved various witnesses, including wildlife officers, police officers, and village officials, who presented evidence related to the alleged offense.

 Ngoda, in her defense, explained that she was apprehended with a plastic bucket in the mentioned location, claiming she encountered another woman initially.

However, after people expressed suspicion about the bucket's contents, Ngoda found herself accused of possessing the game meat.

The court heavily relied on a confession allegedly voluntarily made by Ngoda, where she admitted to being found with 12 pieces of antelope meat.

Judge Mkasiwa, in his judgment, stated that the defendant failed to cast doubt on the evidence presented by the prosecution, and the confession played a pivotal role in the decision.

The case has sparked a broader conversation about the balance between wildlife conservation efforts and respecting individual rights.

Lawyers, advocacy groups, and human rights activists have underscored the need for a legal system that considers the circumstances surrounding the accused and emphasizes the importance of fair and just legal proceedings.

As Tanzania reflects on this case, it serves as a reminder of the challenges in finding the right balance between conservation laws and individual rights, prompting a reevaluation of the adequacy and proportionality of wildlife-related sentences.

Maria Ngoda's acquittal stands as a testament to the power of advocacy and the ongoing dialogue surrounding the intersection of legal justice, conservation efforts, and human rights.