56 AFRICAN COURT LAW REPORT VOLUME 1 (2006-2016) 115. The Court is not satisfied that the social needs argument raised by the Respondent, which has already been dealt with, meets the exceptions in Articles 29(4) and 27(2) of the Charter to such an extent that it justifies the limitation of the right to freedom of association. D. The right not to be discriminated against and the right to equality 116. The Applicants allege that the constitutional provisions which prohibit independent candidature have the effect of discriminating against the majority of Tanzanians, therefore violating the right to freedom from discrimination enshrined in Article 2 of the African Charter. The Article provides: “Every individual shall be entitled to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognized and guaranteed in the present Charter without distinction of any kind such as race, ethnic group, color, sex, language, religion, political or any other opinion, national and social origin, fortune, birth or other status.” 117. The Applicants argue that though the law prohibiting independent candidature applies to all Tanzanians equally, its effects are discriminatory because only those who are members of and are sponsored by political parties can seek election to the Presidency, Parliament and Local Government positions. The Applicants referred the Court to the jurisprudence of the Commission in Communication No 211/98 Legal Resources Foundation v Zambia Fourteenth Activity Report (2000 – 2001) at paragraph 64 where the Commission held inter alia that any “measure which seeks to exclude a section of the citizenry from participating in the democratic processes is discriminatory and falls foul of the Charter”. 118. The Respondent maintained that the law prohibiting independent candidature is not discriminatory as it applies equally to all Tanzanians. 119. It appears that the Applicants are alleging discrimination stemming from the abovementioned constitutional amendments between Tanzanians belonging to political parties on one hand, and Tanzanians not belonging to political parties to the other, as the former can contest presidential, legislative and local elections while the latter are not so permitted. In that understanding, the right not to be discriminated is related to the right to the equal protection by the law as guaranteed by Article 3(2) of the Charter, which stipulates that “[e]very individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law”. In the light of Article 2 of the Charter above quoted, the alleged discrimination might be related to a distinction based on “political or any other opinion”. To justify the difference in treatment between Tanzanians, the Respondent has, as already mentioned, invoked the existence of social needs of the people of Tanzania based, inter alia, on the particular structure of the State (Union between Mainland Tanzania and Tanzania Zanzibar) and the history of the country, all requiring a gradual construction of a pluralist democracy in unity. The question then arises whether the grounds raised by the Respondent State in answer to that difference in treatment enshrined in the abovementioned constitutional amendments are pertinent, in other words reasonable, and legitimate. As the Court has already indicated,