| dc.description |
There has been various development on Tanzania’s legal framework to allow the
admissibility of electronic evidence in Tanzania courts. However, search and seizure of
electronic evidence was not addressed adequately instead the legal framework mainly
addressed the issue of admissibility of it in criminal and civil proceedings.
The investigative organs lack procedures on how to conduct search or seizure of e-evidence,
there is no uniformity on how to attend e-evidence, and each investigative organ has its
internal standards on search and seizure of e-evidence.
The purpose of this study was to explore how investigative organs in Tanzania performs
search and seizures of electronic where there are no well-established and documented
standards and procedures. The study also explored challenges that may arise from
inconsistencies during investigation that may affect admissibility of e-evidence.
The comparative study research design was applied where by a comparison of procedures for
search and seizure of electronic evidence between Tanzania and the U.K was made. Primary
and secondary data were employed to provide a clear picture of how proper procedures for
search and seizure of electronic evidence affects the admissibility of it during court
proceedings. Primary data were collected through the use of questionnaires and document
reviews while secondary data were collected from investigation and prosecution reports.
This study came out with findings one being the current legal framework does not
adequately cover the issue of search and seizure of e-evidence. Secondly, it was found that
lack of standard procedures to adhere may lead to a higher risk of electronic evidence to be
rejected in court for lack of authenticity. Furthermore, there was a gap of knowledge on the
topic of search and seizure of electronic evidence among investigators, judges, magistrates,
prosecutors and members of the bench. Lastly, the study found out that lack of standard
procedures for search and seizure of e-evidence and a gap of knowledge may lead the
judiciary to have various conflicting decisions. |
|