Previous 6 / 40 Next

TLS and Others v Tanzania (merits) (2013) 1 AfCLR 34 37 17. In accordance with Rule 35(2)(a) of the Rules, and by a Note Verbale dated 17 June 2011 to Respondent, the Registrar served a copy of the 2nd Application on the Respondent by registered post. The Respondent was informed of the registration of the Application, and also that, in accordance with Rule 35(4)(a) of the Rules, Respondent had to communicate the names and addresses of its representatives within thirty (30) days and further that, in accordance with Rule 37 of the Rules, Respondent had to respond to the Application within sixty (60) days. 18. In accordance with Rule 35(3) of the Rules and by a letter dated 18 July 2011, the 2nd Application was notified to the Executive Council of the African Union and States Parties to the Protocol, through the Chairperson of the African Union Commission. 19. By a Note Verbale dated 27 July 2011 and received at the Registry of the Court on the same date, the Respondent communicated the names and addresses of its representatives. 20. By a Note Verbale dated 23 August 2011 and received at the Registry of the Court on 24 August 2011, the Respondent filed its Response to the 2nd Application. 21. By a Note Verbale dated 25 August 2011, the Registrar acknowledged receipt of the Respondent’s Response to the 2nd Application. 22. By a letter dated 25 August 2011, the Registrar served the 2nd Applicant’s Counsel with the Respondent’s Response to the 2nd Application and informed Counsel that he if he wished to file a Reply to the Respondent’s Response he was to do so within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Respondent’s Response. 23. At its 22nd Ordinary Session held from 12 to 23 September 2011 and by an Order dated 22 September 2011, the Court decided that the proceedings in the two cases be consolidated. 24. On 3 October 2011, the Registrar received the 2nd Applicant’s Reply to the Respondent’s Response to Application 011/2011; the Reply was dated 30 September 2011. 25. By a letter dated 3 October 2011, the Registrar acknowledged receipt of the 2nd Applicant’s Reply to the Respondent’s Response to the 2nd Application. 26. By separate letters dated 17 October 2011, the Registrar informed the Parties of the Court’s decision to consolidate the Applications, and sent them the Order for Consolidation. In the letter to the Respondent, the Registrar also forwarded the 2nd Applicant’s Reply to the Respondent’s Response to the 2nd Application. 27. On 28 October 2011, the 1st Applicants filed with the Registry of the Court their Reply to the Respondent’s Response to the 1st Application. 28. By a letter dated 1 November 2011, the Registrar acknowledged receipt of the 1st Applicants’ Reply to the Respondent’s Response to the 1st Application.

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