19 72. In 2005, 2nd Applicant instituted another case in the High Court Christopher Mtikila v The Attorney General, Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 10 of 2005, again challenging the amendments to Articles 39, 67 and 77 of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania as contained in the Eleventh Constitutional Amendment Act of 1994. On 5 May 2006, the High Court once more found in his favour, holding that the impugned amendments violated the democratic principles and the doctrine of basic structures enshrined in the Constitution. By this judgment, the High Court again allowed independent candidates. 73. In 2009, the Attorney General appealed to the Court of Appeal of the United Republic of Tanzania (“the Court of Appeal”), in The Honourable Attorney General v Reverend Christopher Mtikila Civil Appeal No.45 of 2009 (“Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2009”), against the above judgment of the High Court. In its Judgment of 17 June 2010, the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court’s judgment, thereby disallowing independent candidates for election to Local Government, Parliament or the Presidency. 74. The Court of Appeal ruled that the matter was a political one and therefore had to be resolved by Parliament. Afterwards, Parliament set in motion a consultative process aimed at obtaining the views of the citizens of Tanzania on the possible amendment of the Constitution. At the hearing, it was confirmed to the Court that the process was still ongoing.