Previous 7 / 40 Next

38 AFRICAN COURT LAW REPORT VOLUME 1 (2006-2016) 29. By a letter dated 5 November 2011, the Registrar served the Respondent with a copy of the 1st Applicants’ Reply to the Respondent’s Response to the 1st Application. 30. At its 23rd Ordinary Session held from 5 to 16 December 2011, the Court decided that the pleadings in the consolidated Applications were closed and that a public hearing on the Applications would be held during its 24th Ordinary Session from 19 to 30 March 2012. The actual dates proposed for the public hearing were 26 to 27 March 2012. 31. By a letter dated 21 December 2011, the Registrar informed the Parties of the proposed dates for the public hearing and requested them to confirm their availability, and also whether the proposed dates would suit them; they were asked to do so no later than 20 January 2012. 32. By a Note Verbale dated 19 January 2012 and received at the Registry of the Court on 7 February 2012, the Respondent informed the Registrar that the dates proposed for the hearings were not convenient and requested that the hearings be rescheduled to 11 and 12 April 2012. 33. By a letter dated 3 February 2012, the Registrar acknowledged receipt of the Respondent’s letter of 19 January 2012. 34. By a letter dated 20 January 2012 and received at the Registry of the Court on 7 February 2012, the 1st Applicants informed the Registry of their availability for the public hearing on the dates proposed by the Court. 35. By a letter dated 8 February 2012, the Registrar acknowledged receipt of the 1st Applicant’s letter of 20 January 2012. 36. By separate letters both dated 13 March 2012, the Registrar informed the Parties that the public hearing would take place during the 25th Ordinary Session of the Court scheduled for June 2012 and that, in due course, they would be informed of the actual dates. 37. On 2 April 2012, the Registry received an electronic mail from the 2nd Applicant’s Counsel, forwarding submissions dated 31 March 2012, regarding the postponement of the public hearing. 38. By a letter dated 3 April 2012, the Registrar acknowledged receipt of the 2nd Applicant’s Counsel’s submissions on the postponement of the public hearing. 39. By separate letters all dated 12 April 2012, the Registrar informed the Parties of the Court’s decision taken at its 24th Ordinary Session held from 19 to 30 March 2012, that the public hearing on the case would be held on 14 and 15 June 2012 and that the matters would be heard on both the preliminary objections and the merits. 40. On 13 April 2012, the Registry of the Court received an electronic mail from the 2nd Applicant’s Counsel acknowledging receipt of the Registrar’s letter dated 12 April 2012 informing the Parties of the new dates for the public hearing. 41. By a letter dated 4 May 2012, the Registry informed the Executive Council of the African Union and State Parties to the Protocol, through

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