20161202 TZHC Dar es Salaam

20161202 TZHC Dar es Salaam

Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 19, 21, and 22 of the Cybercrimes Act do not violate the rights to information or liberty as the terms used are commonly understood, the provisions are not arbitrary, and adequate safeguards exist. However, section 50(2)(b) of the Act is unconstitutional as it denies the right to be heard and appeal, violating Article 13(6)(a) of the Constitution.

Citation
20161202 TZHC Dar es Salaam
Parties
Petitioner: Jebra Kambole; Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
2 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
Petition dismissed in respect of the first and second issues; allowed in respect of the third issue regarding section 50(2)(b) of the Cybercrimes Act.
Legal Topics
Right to Information, Right to Liberty, Right to Be Heard, Cybercrime, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Human Rights Right to Information Right to Liberty Right to Be Heard Cybercrime Statutory Interpretation

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jebra Kambole

Petitioner

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sections 4 and 5 of the Cybercrimes Act, No. 14 of 2015 violate the right to seek, receive and disseminate information as per Article 18 of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania
  2. 2 Whether sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Cybercrimes Act, No. 14 of 2015 violate the right to liberty under Article 17 of the Constitution
  3. 3 Whether sections 38 and 50 of the Cybercrimes Act, No. 14 of 2015 violate the right to be heard as per Article 13 of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 19, 21, and 22 of the Cybercrimes Act do not violate the rights to information or liberty as the terms used are commonly understood, the provisions are not arbitrary, and adequate safeguards exist. However, section 50(2)(b) of the Act is unconstitutional as it denies the right to be heard and appeal, violating Article 13(6)(a) of the Constitution.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed in respect of the first and second issues; allowed in respect of the third issue regarding section 50(2)(b) of the Cybercrimes Act.

Orders

  • Section 50(2)(b) of the Cybercrimes Act declared unconstitutional to the extent it restricts the right of hearing and appeal.
  • Government directed to correct anomalies in section 50 within twelve months, failing which the provision to be scrapped.