Senior State Attorney Prosper Mwangamila, for the prosecution, told Principal Resident Magistrate Waliarwande Lema at the Kisutu Resident Magistrates Court in Dar es Salaam that they were still collecting evidence before deciding whether or not to call witnesses to adduce evidence.
“We pray for another mention date pending further investigations,” the prosecutor submitted.
The magistrate granted the request and adjourned the case to April 24. In the trial, the two accused persons are charged with unlawful carrying out of fishing activities in the EEZ and water pollution and degradation of the marine environment.
Hanquing was charged with the alternative count of being an accessory after the fact.
The prosecution alleges that between January 10 and March 8, 2009, jointly and together, the duo carried out fishing activities in the EEZ of Tanzania without a licence.
Within the same period, according to the prosecution, both accused persons polluted the waters and degraded the marine environment of Tanzania’s EEZ by throwing offal and other fish waste in the sea waters.
It is alleged further that between March 8 and 11, 2009 at various places in Mombasa, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam port, in Temeke district, knowing that Tai was carrying out fishing activities in the EEZ of Tanzania without a licence, Hanquing assisted him in order to enable him escape prosecution and punishment.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) decided to file fresh charges against the two foreigners a few days after the Court of Appeal had nullified previous proceedings, judgment and the orders given by High Court Judge Augustine Mwarija on February 23, 2012 in the trial.
The two foreigners were convicted of unlawful fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone of Tanzania and were sentenced to pay a fine of 1bn/- each or go to jail for ten years in default.
Tai was convicted of another separate offence of water pollution and degradation of marine environment.
He was sentenced to pay a fine of 20bn/- or imprisoned for 10 years upon failure to pay the fine in question. Both appellants defaulted in paying the fine.