Previous 4 / 40 Next

TLS and Others v Tanzania (merits) (2013) 1 AfCLR 34 35 Separate opinion: NIYUNGEKO Sequence of judgment (Court should first deal with jurisdiction and then admissibility, 4) Jurisdiction (temporal jurisdiction, entry into force of Protocol, 17) I. The parties 1. The Tanganyika Law Society and The Legal and Human Rights Centre (“the 1st Applicants”) describe themselves as NonGovernmental Organizations (“NGOs”) with Observer Status before the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (“the Commission”). They are both based in the United Republic of Tanzania. They state their objectives as representing the interests of its members, the administration of justice, and upholding and advising the Government and the public on all legal matters, including human rights, rule of law and good governance; and the promotion and protection of human and peoples’ rights, respectively. 2. Reverend Christopher R Mtikila (“2nd Applicant”), is a national of the United Republic of Tanzania. He brings his Application in his personal capacity, as a national of the Republic. 3. The Respondent is the United Republic of Tanzania and is cited herein because the Applicants contend that it has ratified the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (“the Charter”), and also the Protocol. Furthermore, the Respondent has made a declaration in terms of Article 34(6) of the Protocol, accepting to be cited before this Court by an individual or an NGO with Observer Status before the Commission. II. Nature of the Applications 4. On 2 June 2011 and 10 June 2011, respectively, the 1st Applicants and the 2nd Applicant filed in the Registry of the Court Applications instituting proceedings against the Respondent, claiming that the Respondent had, through certain amendments to its Constitution, violated its citizens’ right of freedom of association, the right to participate in public/governmental affairs and the right against discrimination by prohibiting independent candidates to contest Presidential, Parliamentary and Local Government elections. The Applicants also allege that the Respondent violated the rule of law by initiating a constitutional review process to settle an issue pending before the courts of Tanzania. III. Procedure 5. The Application by the 1st Applicants (“the 1st Application”) was received at the Registry of the Court on 2 June 2011. By a letter of the same date, the Registrar acknowledged receipt of the Application and

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Tanganyika Law Society v. Tanzania

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the Tanzania regulation prohibiting independent candidates from seeking public office is unconstitutional?

Alleged Acts: Applicants contend that the constitutional and statutory provision are in conflict. The Tanganyika Law Society contends that the ability to introduce restrictions on candidacy and responsive to the social needs of the country. Tanganyika Law Society further argues that the applicant lacks standing because he formed his own political party.

Procedural history: The National Assembly of the United Republic of Tanzania passed a law requiring all candidates for Presidential, Parliamentary and Local elections either ascertain a sponsor or be a member of a political party. The applicant contended that this provision conflicted with the Constitution and was therefore void. The provision was declared unconstitutional. The National Assembly subsequently passed a law which negated the judgment of the High Court. The applicant against filed suit and won, whereby the court declared the law unconstitutional. The Attorney appealed the declaration by the High Court. The Court of Appeals held the law constitutional and thereby disallowed candidates from running as independents.

Summary: In determining whether the restriction was permissible, the source looked to the American Convention of Human Rights that requires restrictions be (1) in the general interest; and (2) the law conforms with the ACHR. For examples, general interest restrictions included: security, morality, and common interest. The court determined that the restriction on the right to participate in the political community was not within these definitions. Further, the court found that although the respondents alleged that the restriction was aimed at fostering unity, this was not enough to limit candidacy. The second applicants adherence to a political party does not relieve that Tanganyika Law Society of its obligations.

Conclusion: The law is in violation of the Tanzania constitution because it fails to allow free participation in the democratic institutions.

Legal Issue(s)

Candidate Registration
Judicial Independence

Applicable Law(s): Tanzania Const. 13(1); ICCPR art. 3, 25; UDHR art. 21(1).

Region: Africa

Country: Tanzania. United Republic of

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: Review of law

Date of decision: Jun 14, 2019

Geolocation

Latitude: -6.197854235905414

Longitude: 35.76019975940197

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Tanganyika Law Society v. Tanzania.pdf
English
Download View

Supporting files

pdf

French- Tanganyika Law Society v. Tanzania.pdf1.29 MB

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Tanganyika Law Society v. Tanzania

Primary Documents

Supporting files

Notifications