50 AFRICAN COURT LAW REPORT VOLUME 1 (2006-2016) individual shall be exercised with due regard to the rights of others, collective security, morality and common interest”. Further, the duty set out in Article 29(4) of the Charter which requires individuals, “To preserve and strengthen social and national solidarity, particularly when the latter is threatened;” also limits the enjoyment of this right. 101. The Respondent, in support of the said restrictions calls in aid the principle of necessity based on the social needs of the people of Tanzania. What are these social needs? 102. In response to the questions put by the Court during the hearing, the Respondent stated that the circumstances prevailing in Tanzania demand that the prohibition of independent candidates be maintained. According to the Respondent, this is in view of the structure of the Union, the United Republic of Tanzania comprising Mainland Tanzania and Tanzania Zanzibar. They contended that the restriction that there should be at least a minimum number of members of a party from the Mainland and from Zanzibar is justifiable and that the requirements to be met regarding the registration of political parties have resulted in no tribalism in Tanzania. The Respondent argues that the law merely sets out the procedure of exercising the right but does not restrict it and that the procedure merely sets out the minimum obligations one has to discharge in order to enjoy the rights and that these are reasonable. 103. The Respondent reiterated the position of the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No 45 of 2009 which was similar to the decision in the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights; Castañeda Gutman v Mexico, Judgment of 6 August 2008 Series C No 184 to the effect that the decision to introduce independent candidates depends on the social needs of each state based on its historical reality. The Respondent cited paragraphs 192 and 193 of the judgment in the Castañeda Gutman v Mexico case as follows: “192. The systems that accept independent candidates can be based on the need to expand and improve participation and representation in the management of public affairs and to enable a greater rapprochement between the citizens and the democratic institutions; while the systems that opt for the exclusivity of candidacies through political parties can be based on different social needs, such as strengthening these organisaitons as essential instruments of democracy, or the efficient organization of the electoral process. These needs must ultimately respond to a legitimate purpose in accordance with the American Convention. “193. The Court considers that the State has justified that the registration of candidates exclusively through political parties responds to compelling social needs based on diverse historical, political and social grounds. The need to create and strengthen the party system as a response to an historical and political reality; the need to organize efficiently the electoral process in a society of 75 million voters, in which everyone would have the same right to be elected; the need for a system of predominantly public financing to ensure the development of genuine free elections, in equal conditions and the need to monitor efficiently the funds used in the elections, all respond to essential public interest. To the contrary, the representatives have not provided sufficient evidence that, over and above their statements regarding the lack of credibility of the political parties and