TLS and Others v Tanzania (merits) (2013) 1 AfCLR 34 51 the need for independent candidates, would nullify the arguments put forward by the State.” 104. The Respondent elaborated on what it described as the historical and social realities leading to the prohibition of independent candidates. According to the Respondent, after independence, Tanzania had a multiparty system but the one-party system was instituted to cement national unity. Multi-party democracy was reintroduced in the early 90s and through the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, particularly Articles 39, 47 and 67, independent candidacy was prohibited. These provisions were enacted at a time when Tanzania was a young democracy and were necessary so that multiparty democracy is strengthened. 105. The Respondent also elaborated on the alleged mischief which sought to be addressed by the Eleventh Constitutional Amendment. They stated that prior to the passing of Eleventh Constitutional Amendment, a reading of Article 21 of the Constitution dealt exclusively with the right to participate in national public affairs, while the qualifications for party affiliation for Presidential, Parliamentary, as well as Local Government posts, were enshrined in Articles 39, 47 and 67 of the Constitution. Therefore, Article 21 of the Constitution was read in isolation from the provisions dealing with the requirement of party affiliation for participation in national public affairs. This was a mischief which was caused by non-harmonisation of the two sets of provisions. The Eleventh Constitutional amendment was meant to cure this mischief by harmonizing and cross referring the provisions dealing with party sponsorship, that is, Articles 39, 47 and 67 to Article 21 which deals with the right to participate in public affairs. They also maintained the already existing provisions by solidifying and concretizing them. Similarly, the intention of the government was to allow participation in public affairs through political parties, bearing in mind that the amendments were only made two years after the enactment of the Political Parties Act in 1992 and Tanzania was still in the throes of establishing a multiparty democracy. The country, at the time, was as yet to hold its very first general election under the multi-party system, and it was still at its infant stage of multiparty democracy, and there was not any compelling social need for independent candidature. 106. Jurisprudence 106.1 Jurisprudence regarding the restrictions on the exercise of rights has developed the principle that, the restrictions must be necessary in a democratic society; they must be reasonably proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Once the complainant has established that there is a prima facie violation of a right, the Respondent State may argue that the right has been legitimately restricted by “law”, by providing evidence that the restriction serves one of the purposes set out in Article 27(2) of the Charter. In Communications No 105/93, 128/ 94, 130/94, 152/96) Media Rights Agenda and others v Nigeria Fourteenth Activity Report (2000-2001) and Communication No 255/ 2002 Gareth Anver Prince v South Africa Eighteenth Activity Report (July 2004 –December 2004), the Commission has stated that the “only legitimate reasons for limitations to the rights and freedoms of the African Charter” are found in Article 27(2) of the Charter. After