This matter was fixed for preliminary inquiry. However, when
it was called on for hearing learned Principal State Attorney and lead counsel
for the Republic, rose to address the court on the propriety of the committal
proceedings conducted at the District Court, Lindi, and the committal order
that followed.
Counsel argued, with vigour, on two limbs: One, that in
conducting the committal proceedings, the subordinate court committed certain
procedural irregularities that would vitiate the said proceedings; and two,
that in its committal order, the court did not mention to which court the
accused persons were being committed, thus rendering the said order invalid.
In an equally vigorous response, lead counsel for the
defence submitted in part that the procedure for committal proceedings is
governed by sections 245, 246 and 247 of the CPA. However, he said, every
magistrate has his own style in conducting them, and there is no specific
format in the CPA. All that is important is to ensure that the requirements
have been complied with. He maintained that there has been compliance in this
case.