TLS and Others v Tanzania (merits) (2013) 1 AfCLR 34 55 Applicant has successfully formed a political party, he cannot be stopped from challenging the validity of the laws in question and from asserting that the same amounts to a violation of the Charter. A matter such as this one cannot and must not be dealt with as though it were a personal action, and it would be inappropriate for this Court to do so. If there is violation, it operates to the prejudice of all Tanzanians; and if the Applicants’ Application succeeds, the outcome inures to the benefit of all Tanzanians. 111. The Court therefore finds a violation of the right to participate freely in the government of one’s country since for one to participate in Presidential, Parliamentary or Local Government elections in Tanzania, one must belong to a political party. Tanzanians are thus prevented from freely participating in the government of their Country directly or through freely chosen representatives. C. The right to freedom of association 112. It is the contention of the Applicants that the restriction requiring affiliation to a political party has impaired the freedom of association for Tanzanians wishing to participate in politics. They contend further that freedom of association is a core democratic principle which is meant to allow citizens to monitor the State so as to ensure appropriate discharge of public functions and demand government compliance with legislations thus ensuring transparency and accountability. They placed reliance on Article 10 of the African Charter, Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 22 of the ICCPR. Article 10(2) of the Charter indeed states that: “2. Subject to the obligation of solidarity provided for in Article 29, no one may be compelled to join an association”. The relevant cross reference to Article 29 of the Charter is Article 29(4) thereof which imposes a duty on the individual to “preserve and strengthen social and national solidarity, particularly when the latter is threatened”. Article 27(2) of the Charter, being the general limitation clause is pertinent to the consideration of this matter. For ease of reference it is cited again. It provides that: “The rights and freedoms of each individual shall be exercised with due regard to the rights of others, collective security, morality and common interest.” This provision means that State Parties to the Charter are allowed some measure of discretion [to restrict] the freedom of association in the interest of collective security, morality, common interest and the rights and freedoms of others. 113. It is the view of the Court that freedom of association is negated if an individual is forced to associate with others. Freedom of association is also negated if other people are forced to join up with the individual. In other words freedom of association implies freedom to associate and freedom not to associate. 114. The Court therefore finds that by requiring individuals to belong to and to be sponsored by a political party in seeking election in the Presidential, Parliamentary and Local Government posts; the Respondent has violated the right to freedom of association. This is because individuals are compelled to join or form an association before seeking these elective positions.