Case No.:

ACCP-469-1960

Court:

The High Court of Justice

Issue No.:

1962

Principles

·  Criminal Law—Taking hostile action against the Government_ of the Sudan Act 1958, s. (1) (a) (ii) and (e) pamphlet calling for boycott

The publication of a pamphlet calling for a boycott of work on Sundays as a means of resisting the Council of Ministers’ resolution of February 1960, unifying working days throughout the country, is a “hostile action” as defined by Defence of the Sudan Act 1958 (1958 Act No. 38). ss. (i) (a) (ii) and 4 (1) (e).

Judgment

(MAJOR COURT CONFIRMATION

SUDAN GOVERNME v. POULINO DOGALI AND OTHERS

ACCP-469-1960

Advocates: Hanna George ... for the Accused No. 1

J. U. Garang for the Accused No. 2, 3,4

M. A. Abu Rannat C.J, March 8, 1961: —The facts set out in the summary of salient facts are admitted by the four accused and I need not repeat them here. The court convicted the four accused under the Defence of the Sudan Act 1958, S. 4 (i) (a) (ii) and (e), and sentenced the first accused to imprisonment for 12 years and each of the three other accused to imprisonment for 10 years.

An appeal against the finding and sentence in respect of the first accused was lodged by Advocate Hanna George, and an appeal against the sentence only was submitted by each of the three other accused and by Advocate Garang on their behalf.

As to the finding, I wish to refer to some of the passages contained in the leaflet, which was admittedly printed by the first accused on machines and paper belonging to his church.

One paragraph in the leaflet reads: “But the recent decree of our Government saying that Sunday, the religious holiday, becomes an ordinary working day, and that Friday, the Moslem religious day, is the only resting day for all citizens of every creed, clearly states that we (Christians) should disregard the tenets of our Christian faith and Islam must be imposed on us by the present régime.” Another passage reads: “Since the day of our independence, different political parties have ruled us, but never such an order was given; and now what is the matter? Is it because we are now ruled by guns, and our mouths closed, that we should be made to turn our backs to Jesus Christ, being forced to give up our dear religion?” A third passage reads: “Let us resist, therefore, unanimously with one soul, one heart, one body, using this peaceful means. We appeal to all Christians in every walk of life and occupation, from the Assistant Governors to the last street sweeper to boycott work on Sundays as from the third week of April (precisely April 17, 1960).

Reading the leaflet as a whole, I have no doubt that its object is to incite opposition and bring discredit to the Government. One of its objects is clearly to provoke difference between Moslems and Christians. We are a secular State, and the object of the Council of Ministers’ resolution of February 1960 was mere unification of working days in the whole country. The interpretations put by the authors of the leaflet is to show that the present Government is imposing Islam and fighting Christianity.

I therefore confirm the finding against the four accused.

As to sentence:

I agree that it is excessive and out of proportion. Considering all the circumstances and the atmosphere in which the leaflet was prepared and distributed, a deterrent punishment is called for. On the other hand, an excessive sentence transfers the sympathy of the people from the court to the convicted person. I also reviewed the sentences in similar offences and I consider that five years’ imprisonment for the first accused is adequate. He is 36 years old and a responsible person, who ought to know the seriousness of the act done by him, It is a recognised fundamental principle that the State ‘is entitled to protect itself against subversive activities. The three other accused are students who are less responsible and in the circumstances three years’ imprisonment for each of them is adequate. For first accused I also recommend special treatment.