legal and human rights centre lhrc others vs attorney general 1 2006 tzhc 1 24 april 2006

legal and human rights centre lhrc others vs attorney general 1 2006 tzhc 1 24 april 2006

Sections 119(2) and 119(3) of the National Elections Act (the 'takrima' provisions) are unconstitutional because they create discrimination based on economic status among candidates, legalize acts that would otherwise be corrupt practices, and undermine the right to free and fair elections. The provisions fail the proportionality test and have no rational or reasonable nexus to a legitimate public interest. The petitioners, as legal persons acting in the public interest, have locus standi to bring the petition.

Citation
legal and human rights centre lhrc others vs attorney general 1 2006 tzhc 1 24 april 2006
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
24 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition allowed
Legal Topics
Equality Before the Law, Discrimination, Right to 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 Free and Fair Elections Public Interest Litigation Locus Standi

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 4 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

Constitutional Petition / Final 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, as legal persons, have locus standi to bring the petition.

Ratio Decidendi

Sections 119(2) and 119(3) of the National Elections Act (the 'takrima' provisions) are unconstitutional because they create discrimination based on economic status among candidates, legalize acts that would otherwise be corrupt practices, and undermine the right to free and fair elections. The provisions fail the proportionality test and have no rational or reasonable nexus to a legitimate public interest. The petitioners, as legal persons acting in the public interest, have locus standi to bring the petition.

Court Disposition

petition allowed

Orders

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