52 Alleged breach of the rule of law 120. The 2nd Applicant argues that by initiating a Constitutional amendment to settle a legal dispute that was pending before the Courts, the effect of which was to nullify the judicial settlement of the matter, the Respondent abused the distinctive process of constitutional amendment and therefore the principle of the rule of law. The 2nd Applicant contended that the rule of law is a principle of customary international law. The Respondent submitted that the Government of Tanzania fully adheres to principles of the rule of law, separation of powers and independence of the judiciary as provided for under the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania. In response to the 2nd Applicant’s argument that the 11th constitutional amendment was in violation of the rule of law, Respondent argued that constitutional review and amendment is not a new phenomenon in Tanzania and that the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania has, so far, undergone fourteen (14) constitutional amendments. Article 98(1) of the Constitution provides that the Constitution can be amended at any time when the need arises and this is what happened in 1994; therefore, the issue of the rule of law being violated does not arise at all. 121. The Court is of the view that the concept of the rule of law is an allencompassing principle under which human rights fall and so cannot be treated in abstract or wholesale. Furthermore the Applicants’ claim that the rule of law has been violated is not related to a specific right;