48 AFRICAN COURT LAW REPORT VOLUME 1 (2006-2016) violates rights under Articles 2, 10 and 13(1) of the Charter, which articles are referred to later in detail, inasmuch as it bars independent candidates from contesting Presidential, Parliamentary as well as Local Government elections. 89.3 It is contended, firstly, that the prohibition constitutes discrimination against independent candidates. Secondly, that it violates the right to freedom of association and also the right to participate in public or government affairs in one’s country. It is argued that the requirements for forming a political party are onerous; for example, a political party must have certain quota numbers by regions; it must also have members not only from the Mainland, but also from Zanzibar. One could not enjoy the exercise of one’s political rights unless one belonged to a political party; the Applicants, therefore argue that there is no freedom of association. 90. Respondent’s case on the merits 90.1 The Respondent argues that the prohibition of independent candidates is a way of avoiding absolute and uncontrolled liberty, which would lead to anarchy and disorder; the prohibition is necessary for good governance and unity. Therefore, the qualifications for election to the positions of President of the United Republic of Tanzania, Member of Parliament and in Local Government has been regulated by articles 39(1) and 67(1)(b) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania 1977, and section 39(f) of the Local Authorities (Elections) Act, Cap 292, respectively. The prohibition on independent candidates for positions of government leadership is necessary for national security, defence, public order, public peace and morality. Respondent further argues that the requirements for the registration of a political party, such as the need to include regional representation, are necessary to avoid tribalism. 90.2 Regarding the alleged discrimination, the Respondent argues that the relevant constitutional amendments were not targeted at any particular individuals, but apply to all Tanzanians equally; therefore, the amendments are not discriminatory. 90.3 With regard to the alleged violation of the right to freedom of association, the Respondent argues that standing for a political position is a matter of personal ambition; one is not forced to do so if one does not want to. Referring to 2nd Applicant in particular, Respondent argues that he has never been prevented from participating in politics; he belongs to a political party and has stood for the position of President but lost. 90.4 The Respondent therefore prays the Court to dismiss the Applications. VII. The decision of the Court on the merits A. The right to participate freely in the government of one’s country 91. The Applicants, as stated earlier, contend that the Respondent is in violation of Article 13(1) of the Charter. They argue that the violation is