By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

Once we hold as indeed we do, that the Attorney General was not summoned asa party to appear for the hearing on 16.6.94, then there can be no basis forsaying that Mr. Mussa, the Senior State Attorney Dodoma, was summoned asthe Attorney General’s representative designated for the hearing on 16.6.94 For,the Attorney General connote have designated Mr. Mussa to take part in theproceedings on 16.6.94 to which proceedings the Attorney General himself wasnot summoned and to which he was not a party. In which case. Therefore, thecalling by the court upon Mr. Mussa on 16.6.94 andWhat Mr. Mussa is alleged to have said on that day that they did not wish to beheard etc. even if it be true all this becomes wholly irrelevant for the simplereason that Mr. Mussa was not the representative. Of the Attorney General withinthe meaning of the sub-section. In other words, in terms of the sub-section Mr.Mussa had no authority to be contacted or to say anything on behalf of theAttorney General in this matter, especially after the Attorney General hadexpressly stated on the summons which was sent t him that he was not a party tothe case.It is true that the sub-section under consideration empowers the court, in certaincircumstances, to commence or continue hearing the case ex-prate if the courtso directs. But in this case the court did not direct that he hearing be commencedor continued ex-prate. Indeed, if we may say so in passing, the circumstances ofthe case could not have warranted any such direction.263