Previous 16 / 40 Next

TLS and Others v Tanzania (merits) (2013) 1 AfCLR 34 47 Respondent made the declaration in terms of Article 34(6) of the Protocol. B. Material and personal jurisdiction of the Court 85. Article 3(1) of the Protocol confers jurisdiction on this Court to hear matters concerning the alleged violation of human rights; the Article reads: “The jurisdiction of the Court shall extend to all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and Application of the Charter, this Protocol and any other relevant Human Rights instrument ratified by the States concerned.” It appears that the alleged violations fall within the scope of this provision. 86. Article 5(3) of the Protocol read together with Article 34(6) of the Protocol sets out the jurisdiction of the Court to consider Applications from individuals and NGOs. Article 5(3) reads: “The Court may entitle relevant Non Governmental organizations (NGOs) with observer status before the Commission, and individuals to institute cases directly before it, in accordance with Article 34(6) of this Protocol”. Article 34(6) provides: “At the time of the ratification of this Protocol or any time thereafter, the State shall make a declaration accepting the competence of the Court to receive cases under Article 5(3) of this Protocol. The Court shall not receive any petition under Article 5(3) involving a State Party which has not made such a declaration.” From the record, the Respondent has ratified the Protocol and made the declaration under Article 34(6) thereof, thus the Court can consider Applications from individuals and NGOs brought against it; the 1st Applicants have Observer Status before the Commission therefore the Court has jurisdiction ratione personae. 87. Apart from the point of the temporal jurisdiction of the Court dealt with above which was raised by the Respondent, no other point challenging the jurisdiction of the Court was raised; there is no issue which deprives the Court of its jurisdiction. It therefore has jurisdiction to hear the matter. 88. As the Applications are admissible, and the Court has jurisdiction, the Court proceeds to consider the merits of the case which, as said earlier, were argued together with the Respondent’s preliminary objections. VI. Merits of the case 89. The Applicants’ case on the merits 89.1 The case and arguments of the 1st Applicants and the 2nd Applicant on the merits are substantially the same; therefore, they will be dealt with together, except where it is necessary to make a distinction. 89.2 The gist of the Applicants’ case, set out earlier in more details, is that the Eleventh Constitutional Amendment passed by the Tanzanian National Assembly on 2 December 1994 and assented to by the President of the United Republic of Tanzania on 17 January 1995,

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