Previous 3 / 40 Next

34 AFRICAN COURT LAW REPORT VOLUME 1 (2006-2016) Tanganyika Law Society, Legal and Human Rights Centre and Reverend Christopher R Mtikila v Tanzania (merits) (2013) 1 AfCLR 34 In the consolidated matter of (1) Tanganyika Law Society and the Legal and Human Rights Centre v The United Republic of Tanzania (009/2011) and (2) Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila v The United Republic of Tanzania (011/2011) Judgment, 14 June 2013, Done in English and French, the English text being authoritative. Judges: AKUFFO, OUGUERGOUZ, MUTSINZI, NIYUNGEKO, TAMBALA, THOMPSON, ORE and GUINDO NGOEPE, Recused under Article 22: RAMADHANI The Court joined two cases submitted against Tanzania dealing with the same issue, namely, whether the prohibition of independent candidates to contest elections violated the African Charter. The Court held that the prohibition of independent candidates to contest elections violated the right to political participation as set out in Article 13 of the Charter. Jurisdiction (ratification of Court Protocol, 84) Admissibility (exhaustion of local remedies, parties, 82.3; submission within reasonable time, 83) Political participation (direct participation, 109, 110) Limitations of rights (Article 27(2); proportionality, 107.2) Association (freedom not to join an association, 113-115) Reparations (when to raise reparations claim, 124) Separate opinion: OUGUERGOUZ Jurisdiction (material jurisdiction; human rights instrument, 14-16; temporal jurisdiction, deposit of Article 34(6) declaration, 21-23) Admissibility (NGO interest, seizing Court on behalf of individual, 26-27) Limitations of rights (must comply with Article 27(2), 30; freedom of association and political participation not without limitations, 32; state must provide proof that limitations necessary for a legitimate purpose, 33, 34) Separate opinion: NGOEPE Sequence of judgment (no need for rigidity, 2)

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