NA TZHC Dar es Salaam1

NA TZHC Dar es Salaam1

The amendments to Articles 39 and 67 of the Constitution, introduced by Act No. 34 of 1994, restricting candidacy for president and parliament to political party members, are constitutional. The amendments were enacted within legislative competence, serve the legitimate aim of representative democracy, and do not violate fundamental rights or international instruments. The proportionality test is met, and the restriction is not arbitrary or discriminatory.

Citation
NA TZHC Dar es Salaam1
Parties
Petitioner: Christopher Mtikila; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 January 1994
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Right to Contest Elections, Private Candidacy, Constitutional Amendments, Proportionality Test, International Human Rights Instruments
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Electoral Law Right to Contest Elections Private Candidacy Constitutional Amendments Proportionality Test International Human Rights Instruments

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Mtikila

Petitioner

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Articles 39 and 67 as amended by Act No. 34 of 1994 are unconstitutional
  2. 2 Whether the amendments meet the proportionality test
  3. 3 Whether the amendments contravene international human rights instruments

Ratio Decidendi

The amendments to Articles 39 and 67 of the Constitution, introduced by Act No. 34 of 1994, restricting candidacy for president and parliament to political party members, are constitutional. The amendments were enacted within legislative competence, serve the legitimate aim of representative democracy, and do not violate fundamental rights or international instruments. The proportionality test is met, and the restriction is not arbitrary or discriminatory.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petition dismissed with costs to the respondent