Previous 5 / 40 Next

36 AFRICAN COURT LAW REPORT VOLUME 1 (2006-2016) informed the Applicants that their Application had been registered as Application No 009/2011. 6. At its 21st Ordinary Session, held from 6 to 17 June 2011, the Court directed the Registrar to enquire from the Commission whether the 1st Applicants had Observer Status before the Commission and decided that only if it was confirmed that the 1st Applicants had Observer Status, would the Application be served on the Respondent. 7. By a letter dated 17 June 2011 to the Executive Secretary of the Commission, the Registrar, as instructed by the Court, enquired whether the 1st Applicants had Observer Status before the Commission. 8. By a letter dated 15 July 2011 and received at the Registry on the same date, the Executive Secretary of the Commission responded that the 1st Applicants had Observer Status before the Commission. 9. In accordance with Rule 35(2)(a) of the Rules, and by a Note Verbale dated 18 July 2011 to the Respondent, the Registrar served a copy of the Application by the 1st Applicants on the Respondent by registered post. The Respondent was informed of the registration of the 1st Application and, in accordance with Rule 35(4)(a) of the Rules, was asked to communicate to the Court the names and addresses of its representatives within thirty (30) days and, in accordance with Rule 37 of the Rules, to respond to the Application within sixty (60) days. This Note Verbale was copied to the 1st Applicants’ representative, the Tanganyika Law Society. 10. In accordance with Rule 35(3) of the Rules and by a letter dated 18 July 2011, the 1st Application was notified to the Executive Council of the African Union and State Parties to the Protocol through the Chairperson of the African Union Commission. 11. By a Note Verbale dated 19 August 2011 and received at the Registry of the Court on the same date, the Respondent communicated the names of its representatives. This list of representatives was copied to the Applicants. 12. The Respondent sent its Reply to the 1st Application by a Note Verbale dated 16 September 2011, which was received at the Registry of the Court on the same date. 13. By a Note Verbale dated 16 September 2011, the Registrar acknowledged receipt of the Respondent’s Response to the 1st Application. 14. The Application by the 2nd Applicant (“the 2nd Application”) was received at the Registry on 10 June 2011; in his Application, the 2nd Applicant informed the Registrar of the names of his Counsel. 15. By a letter dated 20 June 2011 to the 2nd Applicant’s Counsel, the Registrar acknowledged receipt of the Application, informed Counsel that the Application had been registered number as Application No. 011/2011 and that service on the Respondent would be effected. 16. At its 21st Ordinary Session held from 6 to 17 June 2011, the Court directed the Registrar to serve the 2nd Application on the Respondent.

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