44 AFRICAN COURT LAW REPORT VOLUME 1 (2006-2016) is yet to convene and deliberate on the matter. It further argues that there has been a significant development with the process of reviewing the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania. To this end, a commission has been set up, and mandated, to be in charge of the reviewing process. The Respondent argues that, since the commission is to collect the views of the public, the 2nd Applicant will have an opportunity to give his views on the issue of independent candidacy. There shall also be a Constituent Assembly which will deliberate on the provisions of the new Constitution. The Respondent therefore argues that the matter has been left to the people of Tanzania. 80.2 Unreasonable delay in filing the Applications The second preliminary objection raised by Respondent on admissibility is based on Article 56(6) of the Charter, which requires that Applications be “... submitted within a reasonable period from the time local remedies are exhausted or from the date the [Court] is seized with the matter”. The Respondent contends that the Applicants took unreasonably too long to bring their Applications. It argues that whereas the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment on 17 June 2010, it was not until 2 June 2011 and 10 June 2011 that the 1st Applicants and 2nd Applicant, respectively, filed their Applications. 80.3 Lack of jurisdiction The other preliminary objection raised by the Respondent relates to the issue of jurisdiction. Respondent argues that at the time of the alleged violation of the rights in question, the Protocol had not yet come into operation. The Court therefore has no jurisdiction to hear the matter. E. The Applicants’ objections response to the preliminary 81. The Applicants responded to the above preliminary objections raised by the Respondent. 81.1 Alleged lack of exhaustion of local remedies The Applicants contend that the constitution review process and Parliament do not constitute a viable local remedy required to be exhausted in terms of Article 6(2) of the Protocol, read together with Article 56(5) of the Charter. According to the Applicants, what constitutes a viable remedy which must first be exhausted is a judicial remedy. 81.2 Alleged unreasonable delay in filing the Applications Regarding the objection that the Applicants took unreasonably long to bring their Applications: The Applicants contend that there has not been any undue delay. Firstly, within four months of the judgment, there were general elections, and functionaries were preoccupied with those elections. Secondly, the Applicants say that they had to wait for Parliament to deal with the matter in the wake of the judgment of the Court of Appeal. They contend that the lapsed time must be reckoned from the time Parliament failed to act. 81.3 Alleged lack of jurisdiction