Previous 8 / 40 Next

TLS and Others v Tanzania (merits) (2013) 1 AfCLR 34 39 the Chairperson of the African Union Commission, of the dates for the public hearing of the Applications. 42. By a letter dated 16 May 2012, the Respondent requested the Court for leave to submit additional documents to be appended to its pleadings. 43. By a letter dated 16 May 2012 to the Respondent, the Registrar acknowledged receipt of the letter from the Respondent requesting leave to submit additional documents to be appended to its pleadings, and that the Respondent would be informed accordingly regarding its request. 44. By separate letters dated 22 May 2012, the Registrar requested the Parties to confirm and/or indicate the names of their representatives and names of witnesses and/or experts, if any that they intended to call during the public hearing. 45. On 25 May 2012, the Registry received an electronic mail from Counsel for the 2nd Applicant that they would all attend the public hearing. He also advised the Registrar that he would be making a request for legal aid. The request was subsequently made by a letter dated 1 June 2012 applying for legal aid to facilitate the trip of the 2nd Applicant and two of his Counsel to attend the public hearing. The Registrar informed Counsel that the Court could not grant the requested legal aid as the Court had no legal aid policy in place. 46. By a letter dated 23 May 2012 and received at the Registry on 28 May 2012, Respondent communicated the names of its representatives who would be present at the public hearing. 47. On 28 May 2012, the Respondent submitted the additional documents which it had requested be appended to its pleadings. 48. By separate letters dated 29 May 2012, to the Respondent, the Registry acknowledged receipt of the Respondent’s letter submitting the names of its representatives at the public hearing and the Respondent’s letter submitting the additional documents which it had requested be appended to its pleadings. 49. By a letter dated 30 May 2012, the Registrar acknowledged receipt of the electronic mail from Counsel for the 2nd Applicant, dated 25 May 2012 confirming that the 2nd Applicant’s Counsel’s would attend the public hearing. 50. By an electronic mail of 3 June 2012, the 2nd Applicant’s Counsel confirmed receipt of the Registrar’s letter to him dated 30 May 2012. 51. By separate letters dated 31 May 2012, the Registrar served on the Applicants, copies of the additional documents which the Respondent had requested be appended to its pleadings; the Registrar also requested the Applicants to submit their comments, if any, by 7 June 2012, or, in the alternative, to include any comments in their oral submissions during the public hearing. 52. By separate letters dated 31 May 2012, the Registrar requested the Parties to submit written copies of their oral submissions by 7 June 2012.

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