(PROVINCE COURT)

SUDAN GOVERNMENT v. SAMUEL RENZI

PC-CR-REV-9.1959 Juba

Principles

· Criminal Law—Residence orders—Speech by Member of Parliament—Code of Criminal Procedure, 1925, S. 92D

The presence of a Member of Parliament in a district advocating the stoppage of the custom of giving free labour to a chief is not against the interests of public security within the meaning of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1925. S. 92D

Judgment

M, E. S. Gassouma P.1. March 21, 1959 : —On application by the accused I have cancelled the residence order and direct that accused should be at liberty to live in any district he chooses.

Such residence orders are normally applicable to dangerous and habitual offenders whose presence in any district is against the interests of public security. In this particular case, accused, being then a Member of Parliament, was telling his people that they should stop the free labour to their chiefs which is in fact a bad custom and even amounts to an offence if any force is experienced. Such expressions might affect and harm a local custom prevailing in that area, but certainly they have nothing to do with public security.

To prevent accused from living in his home-land for a period of five years was undoubtedly very severe punishment and out of proportion to any offence that might be attributed to him. If accused in fact misbehaved he should have been tried and punished in the normal way, and no unnecessary importance should have been attached to him.