23 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