legal and human rights center lhrc others vs attorney general 2005 tzhc 159 1 december 2005

legal and human rights center lhrc others vs attorney general 2005 tzhc 159 1 december 2005

Sections 119(2) and 119(3) of the National Elections Act (the 'takrima' provisions) are unconstitutional because they are discriminatory in effect, favoring high-income candidates and creating unequal opportunities in elections, thereby violating Articles 13(1), 13(2), 21(1), and 21(2) of the Constitution. The provisions do not meet the proportionality test for permissible restrictions on fundamental rights and serve no legitimate societal interest. The petitioners, as legal entities acting in the public interest, have locus standi to bring the petition.

Citation
legal and human rights center lhrc others vs attorney general 2005 tzhc 159 1 december 2005
Parties
Petitioner: Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC); Petitioner: Lawyers’ Environmental Action Team (LEAT); Petitioner: National Organization for Legal Assistance (NOLA); Respondent: Attorney General
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Cause (constitutional Petition) / Judgment
Outcome
Petition allowed. Sections 119(2), 119(3), and 130(b) and (c) of the National Elections Act declared unconstitutional, null and void, and struck out.
Legal Topics
Equality Before the Law, Discrimination, Right to Participate in Governance, Free and Fair Elections, Public Interest Litigation, Locus Standi
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Election Law Human Rights Equality Before the Law Discrimination Right to Participate in Governance Free and Fair Elections Public Interest Litigation +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC)

Petitioner

Lawyers’ Environmental Action Team (LEAT)

Petitioner

National Organization for Legal Assistance (NOLA)

Petitioner

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Cause (constitutional Petition) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sections 119(2) and 119(3) of the National Elections Act (the 'takrima' provisions) are unconstitutional for violating the right to equality and non-discrimination under Article 13 of the Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether the 'takrima' provisions violate the right to free and fair elections under Article 21 of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether the petitioners have locus standi to bring the petition as legal persons.

Ratio Decidendi

Sections 119(2) and 119(3) of the National Elections Act (the 'takrima' provisions) are unconstitutional because they are discriminatory in effect, favoring high-income candidates and creating unequal opportunities in elections, thereby violating Articles 13(1), 13(2), 21(1), and 21(2) of the Constitution. The provisions do not meet the proportionality test for permissible restrictions on fundamental rights and serve no legitimate societal interest. The petitioners, as legal entities acting in the public interest, have locus standi to bring the petition.

Court Disposition

Petition allowed. Sections 119(2), 119(3), and 130(b) and (c) of the National Elections Act declared unconstitutional, null and void, and struck out.

Orders

  • Sections 119(2) and 119(3) of the National Elections Act (Cap 343 R.E. 2002) are declared null and void and struck out.
  • Section 130(b) and (c) of the National Elections Act are declared unconstitutional and struck out.