ACTRESS Wema Sepetu’s urine was medically tested and found with components of bhang, a senior official with Chief Government Chemistry office, Elias Mlima, told the Kisutu Resident Magistrate’s Court in Dar es Salaam yesterday.
Giving evidence in the trial of Sepetu, who is charged alongside two housemaids with drug abuse, Mlima, the Head of Laboratory Forensic Chemistry Department, said that on February 8, this year, while in his office he received urine sample of former Miss Tanzania.
“The accused was brought to the office by two police officers, Inspector Willy and WP Mary. Having making the registration, I supplied special container to WP Mary, who took Wema to the toilet where she urinated,” Mlima, the first prosecution witness, narrated.
Led by State Attorney Constantine Kakula, for the prosecution, the witness told Principal Resident Magistrate Thomas Simba that the urine sample was later submitted to his office in the laboratory where the examination process was conducted.
“Two steps were involved in the process, including extracting metabolised drugs using organic compound. After such extraction, I went to analyse the same using high performance liquid promatograph where (elements) of bhang drugs were detected,” he testified.
Technically, the witness went on, bhang could be detected in urine within 28 days. He testified that after making such confirmation, Mlima prepared an analysis report, which he signed and later endorsed by Acting Chief Government Chemistry.
Prior to analysis on Wema urine sample, the witness told the court during examination in chief that on February 6, 2017, he had received from the police another sample to prove whether it contained narcotic drugs.
Such sample was an envelope having one roll and two leaves. According to him, he measured the sample which weighed 1.08 grams and went ahead conducting preliminary tests.
The witness testified that the examination tests later proved that the sample contained narcotic drugs of bhang type. Mlima told the court further that having making such analysis he prepared another report which he signed and was later confirmed by the Acting Chief Government Chemist.
The prosecution led the witness to tender the two reports as exhibits in the trial. Advocate Peter Kibatala, for the accused persons, strongly opposed to the tendering process, citing two grounds, including none compliance of section 63 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) on part of the prosecution to secure court’s permission to take biological samples to the accused.
Sub-section (1) of the provision reads, “A magistrate may, on the application of a police officer, allow a medical officer to examine a person in lawful custody in respect of an offence or may allow a medical officer to take and analyse any specimen from that person if he has reasonable grounds for believing that the examination or analysis would provide evidence relating to the offence.”