mtumwa saidi haji others vs attorney general of the united republic of tanzania 1995 tzhc 732 1 january 1995

AT PAR ES SALAAM CIVIL CASE NUT£BER 2 OF 1995 MTUMWA SAIDI HAJI and 49 OTHERS PETITIONERS VERSUS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OP THE UNITED REPUBLIC OP TANZANIA,... RESPONDENT RULING MACKANJA. J. Mtumwa S a id i H aji and 49 o th e r s have b ro u g h t t h is p e t i t i o n f o r d e c la r a t o r y o r d e r s under A r t i c l e 2 6 (1 ) and (2 ) o f the C o n s t it u t io n o f the U nited R e p u b li c " o f Tanzania and s e c t i o n 6 o f the B a s ic R ig h ts and D u tie s E nforcem ent A c t, 1994 and any o th e r e n a b lin g l e g a l p r o v i s i o n s ,1 A l l the p e t i t i o n e r s are members the C i v i c U nited F r o n t, one o f s e v e r a l p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s th a t e n jo y permanent r e g i s t r a t i o n . The p e t i t i o n i s su p p orted by a t r i-p r o n g e d ground a s f o l l o w s (i) th a t the Union P a rlia m en t e r r e d i n p roced u re by e n a c t in g the E le v e n th Amendment pu rsu an t t o A r t i c l e 9 8 ( 1 ) (a ) in s t e a d o f A c r t i c l e 9 8 ( 1 ) (b ) o f the Union C o n s t it u t io n ; , . * (n ) t h a t the .Union P a rlia m en t a cte d u l t r a v i r e s the A r t i c l e s o f Union i n e f f e c t i n g amendments t o A r t i c l e s 3 7 ,4 7 , 4 8 , 49 and 50 o f the Union C o n s t it u t io n , 1977 i n the absence o f a r e ­ n e g o t ia t e d T re a ty betw een Tanganyika and Z a n z ib a r; (iii) th a t the aforem entioned, v i o l a t i o n s o f the b a s ic c o n s t i t u t io n a l norms o f the Tanzania State are in c o n f l i c t w ith the b a s ic d o c t r in e s o f custom ary in t e r n a t io n a l law and the n a t io n a l law , the consequ ences o f which endanger g e n e r a lly the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o r d e r , and the l e g a l i t y o f the Union. I t i s a lle g e d th a t i n making the E le v e n th Amendment the Union P arliam en t as an organ o f s ta te was bound and o b lig e d to comply w ith the C o n s t it u t io n , i n p a r t i c u l a r , A r t ic le 2 6 ( 1 ) o f the C o n s t it u t io n o f the U nited Republic^- I t i s contended by the p e t i t i o n e r s th a t the a lle g e d v i o l a t i o n o f the C o n s t it u t io n , and the a lle g e d i l l e g a l i t y th a t has been o cca s io n e d by the E lev e n th Amendment have a g g rie v e d them; th e y , t h e r e f o r e , f e e l duty bound and e n t i t l e d t o the r ig h t to p r o t e c t the C o n s t it u t io n and l e g a l i t y through t h is p e t i t i o n i n accord a n ce w ith A r t ic le 2 6 (2 ) o f the C o n s titu tio n w hich p r o v id e s t h a t s - ” 2 6 (2 ) Every p e rso n has the r i g h t , in a ccord an ce w ith the p roced u re p ro v id e d by law , t o take l e g a l a c t io n t o ensure the p r o t e c t i o n o f t h is / C o n s t it u t io n and the laws o f the l a n d .M We would say th a t the i n s t i t u t i o n o f t h i s p e t i t i o n may be ev id en ce th a t the p e t i t i o n e r s are among c i v i l s p i r i t e d in d iv id u a ls who, through t h e i r c o lla b o r a t iv e e f f o r t , have d e cid e d 1 t o f i g h t f o r a c o n s t i t u t io n a l o rd e r th a t gu aran tees com pliance w ith the sou rce o f l e g a l i t y f o r a l l la w s, the C on stitu tion .* The p e t i t i o n i s based on f a c t s which are p a r t ic u la r iz e d as h e re u n d e r:- (1 ) th a t on the 26th day o f A p r i l, 1964 the P e o p le * s R e p u b lic o f Z a n zib a r, o f w hich the p e t i t i o n e r s were c i t i z e n s , and the R e p u b lic o f Tanganyika con clu d ed a b i l a t e r a l in t e r n a t io n a l T rea ty th a t u n ite d the two S ta te s i n t o one s o v e r e ig n R e p u b lic ; (2 ) th a t the in stru m en ts o f r a t i f i c a t i o n exchanged on the 27th day o f A p r i l, 1964 a t the Karim jee H a ll i n Dar e s Salaam are m a tters which t h is Court can take j u d i c i a l n o t ic e o f ; (3 ) th a t on the 26th day o f A p r il, 1977, the Union P arliam en t e n a cte d the C o n s t it u t io n o f the U nited R ep u b lic o f Tanzania, w ith ou t s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v id in g f o r the j u r i d i c a l e x e ste n ce o f Tanganyika and p r o v id in g as was p ro v id e d f o r i n the A r t i c l e s o f the Union f o r the a d m in is tra tio n o f Tanganyika’ s n on -u n ion m atters by the Government o f the United R e p u b lic o f Tanzania; (4 ) th a t i n view o f what i s a v erred i n paragraph 8, th a t d e r o g a tio n c o n s it u t e d a b re a ch o f the A r t i c l e s o f Union; (5 ) th a t on the 17th January, 1995 the P re sid e n t o f the United R e p u b lic gave h is a sse n t t o the E lev en th Amendment p assed by the Union P arliam ent i n December, 1994; (6 ) th a t the E leven th Amendment amends, i n t e r a l i a , A r t i c l e s 37, 47, 48, 49 and 50 o f the C o n s t it u t io n o f the U nited R e p u b lic o f Tanzania i n a manner which s u b s t a n t ia lly and fundam entally v i o l a t e s the A r t i c l e s o f Union i n t h a t : - (i) A r t ic le 37 i s amended to remove the P re sid e n t o f Zanzibar from the l i s t o f p erson s to whom the powers o f the P re s id e n t o f the U nited R e p u b lic may d e v o lv e . This f o l a t e s A r t ic le (iii) (b ) o f the A r t i c l e s o f Union th a t p ro v id e d th a t the P re sid e n t o f Zanzibar s h a ll be the p r i n c i p a l a s s is t a n t t o the P re sid e n t o f the United R e p u b lic; (ii) th a t A r t i c l e s 47, 48, 49 and 50 deny the p r e s id e n t o f Zanzibar h is r ig h t t o become the F ir s t V ice P r e s id e n t o f the Union when the P re sid e n t o f the Union h a i ls from Tanganyika and the Second V ice P re s id e n t o f the Union when the Union P re sid e n t h a i l s from Z a n zib a r; (7 ) th a t i n s o f a r as the A r t i c l e s o f Union e n v isa g e d th a t the P re s id e n t o f Zanzibar and n o t any o th e r Z a n z ib a ri, t o be the Union V ice P r e s id e n t, the amendment o f A r t i c l e s 37, 48, 49 and 50 are i n c o n f l i c t w ith the A r t i c l e s o f Union and, t h e r e fo r e , u n c o n s t it u t io n a l; (8 ) th a t what i s a v e rre d in paragraph 7 was f a t a l t o the . v a l i d i t y and l e g a l i t y o f the instrum ent in s o f a r as i t denied the N a tio n a l Assembly the r ig h t to e x e r c is e i t s v o t in g power a cco rd in g to the p rocedure l a i d down under A r t ic le 9 8 ( 1 ) (b ) i n a m atter which a f f e c t s the e x e c u tiv e a u t h o r it y o f the P re s id e n t o f Z anzibar and the e x e cu tiv e a u th o r ity o f the U nited R e p u b lic, In the p en u ltim ate the p e t i t i o n e r s submit th a t the E leven th Amendment f a t a l l y v i o l a t e s the A r t i c l e s o f Union and pray f o r the fo llo w in g d e c la r a t o r y o rd e rs (i) th a t the E lev en th Amendment i n s o f a r as i t i s a v erred i n t h i s p e t i t i o n i s u n c o n s t it u t io n a l and t h e r e fo r e n u ll and v o id ; ( i i ) th a t there e x i s t s a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d isp u te between the U nited R e p u b lic o f Tanzania and the R e v o lu tio n a ry Government o f Zanzibar th a t warrants the summoning o f the S p e c ia l C o n s t it u t io n a l C ourt; (iii) th a t the c o s t s o f t h i s p e t i t i o n be bora by the resp on d en t; and ( i v ) any o th e r o rd e rs and rem edies th a t t h i s Court may deem f i t t o grant i n the circu m stan ces o f t h is p e t i t i o n . The p e t i t i o n has been argued by way o f w r itt e n subm issions.- D r. Sengondo Mvungi, le a rn e d a d v o ca te , r e p r e s e n ts the p e t i t i o n e r s w hile Mr. F id e l Mwidunda, le a rn e d State A tto rn e y a d v oca tes f o r the re sp o n d e n t. Both members o f the Bar have made f a i r l y l u c id arguments f o r which we f e e l we should commend them0 D r. Mvungi s e t the b a l l r o l l i n g . He con ced es the c o n s it u t io n a l powers o f the Union P arliam ent t o s i t as a C o n stitu e n t Assem bly. By re a so n o f th a t c o n c e s s io n the p e t i t i o n e r s do n o t oppose' the l e g i s l a t i v e power o f the Union P arliam ent t o p ass and t o adopt the C o n stitu e n t A c ts . L ater i n t h i s r u lin g th ese A cts w i l l a ls o be c it e d as the A cts o f U nion.’ As in d eed i t i s p la in i n the C o n s t it u t io n , le a rn e d co u n se l p o in t s out th a t th ose powers r e s id e i n A r t ic le 9 8 (1 ) (a ) and ( b ) . He g oes on t o a rg u e, however, th a t t h i s A r t ic le d oes more than m erely v e s t in g pow ers o f c o n t it u t i o n a l making upon the Union P a rlia m en t. I t s p e lls out the p roced u re and c o n d it io n s f o r the e x e r c is e o f such pow ers. The d isp u te i n t h is p e t i t i o n , he sa y s, c e n t r e s on a ll e g a t i o n s made by the p e t i t i o n e r s th a t the p rocedure l a i d down by the C o n s titu tio n was n ot fo llo w e d by P arliam ent when i t passed and adopted the E lev en th Amendment on 2nd December, 1994 in Dodoma. So from the p e t i t i o n e r s ' p le a d in g fo u r is s u e s c r y f o r d e te p n in a tio n , th a t i s t o s a y s - (i) whether there are s u f f i c i e n t f a c t s p ro v in g th a t there was v i o l a t i o n o f the procedure l a i d down by A r t ic le 9 8 ( 1 ) (b ) o f the C o n s titu tio n o f the United R ep u b lic o f Tanzania, 1977; whether the co n tr a v e n tio n , i f any, o f A r t ic le 9 8 ( 1 ) (b ) in v a lid a t e s the p u rp orted E lev en th Amendment; (iii) whethar the Union P arliam ent e n jo y s powers t o e f f e c t c o n s t i t u t io n a l amendments in c o n f l i c t w ith the A r t i c l e s o f O nion; and (iv ) whether the two s ta te p a r t ie s t o the T rea ty o f Union between Tanganyika and Zanzibar are e n t i t l e d t o r e l y upon the d o c t r in e o f fundam ental change o f circu m sta n ce s i n the case o f u n i l a t e r a l amendment o f the b a s ic terms o f the A r t i c l e s o f Union.* The f o u r is s u e s were argued s e r ia tim .' A ft e r re p e a tin g the f i r s t is s u e le a rn e d co u n se l p o in t e d ou£- ground 4 ( i ) o f the p e t i t i o n i n w hich he a ll e g e s th a t the Union P arliam en t e r r e d i n procedure b y e n a c tin g the E lev en th Amendment pursuant t o A r t i c le 9 8 ( 1 ) (a ) in s t e a d o f A r t ic le 9 8 ( 1 ) (b ) o f the Union C o n s t it u t io n . In p r o o f f o r t h is co n te n tio n the p e t i t i o n e r s r e l y on the Hansard r e p o r t f o r the Seventeenth S e ss io n r e l a t i n g t o the B i l l th a t in tro d u ce d the E lev en th Amendment. The u n disp u ted e x t r a c t i s reproduced be low s- "MATOKEO YA KURA K atibu wa Bunge: Mheshimiwa Spika, naomba kutoa matokeo ya kura rasmi kama i f u a t a v y o : - Waliosema hapana n i 5 Waliosema n d iy o n i 186 S p ik a : Maana yake n i kwamba w a lio b a k i hawapo, kwa h iy o id a d i ya t h e lu th i m b ili ya Wabunge wote id a d i inayotakiw a ku kam ilisha matakwa ya K atiba n i Wabunge 167, n d io lazim a w a a fik i, sasa w a lio a f ik i n i . 186 kwa h iy o , natangaza kwamba w a lio a f ik i wameshinda na Muswada umepitishwa kwa m ujibu wa K atiba ( V i f i j o / M a k o fi)" . Dr. Mvungi contends th a t there i s h a r d ly any need t o b ela b o u r t h is p o in t* I t i s an in d is p u ta b le f a c t , he sa y s, which the A ttorn ey G eneral adm its i n paragraph 3 o f h is amended r e p ly t o the p e t i t i o n th a t the E le v e n th Amendment was e f f e c t e d in accordance w ith the p r o v is io n s o f A r t ic le 9 8 ( 1 ) ( a ) , even though the A ttorn ey General makes an a lt e r n a t iv e argument in the same paragraph 3 th a t even i f the s a id v o t e s were counted in a ccord an ce w ith the p r o v is io n s o f A r t i c l e 9 8 (1 ) (b ) the v o t e s c a s t by Z a n zib a ri Members o f P arliam ent were more than h a lf the m a jo r it y , th e r e fo r e w ith in the requ irem en ts o f the A r t i c l e . Learned co u n se l fin d 3 the secon d le g o f the A ttorn ey G e n e r a l's argument t o be t o t a l l y wrong in th a t the requirem ent under A r t ic le 9 8 (1 ) (b ) i s tw o -th ir d s m a jo r it y o f v o t e s o f Mainland Members o f P arliam ent and an i d e n t i c a l m a jo r it y o f Z a n zib a ri Members o f P a rlia m en t, each b lo c k v o t in g s e p e r a t e ly . More than h a l f m a jo r ity o f Z a n zib a ri Members o f P arliam ent i s n o t e q u iv a le n t t o tw o -th ir d s m a jo r it y o f Z a n zib a ri Members o f P arliam ent and, m oreover, noth in g i s s a id o f the Mainland Members o f P a rlia m en t. In any e v e n t the respondent having adm itted th a t the procedure adopted was th a t p ro v id e d f o r under A r t ic le 9 8 ( 1 ) ( a ) , le a rn e d cou n sel fin d s i t r a th e r su p e rflu o u s t o co n s id e r the t h e o r a t i c a l argument th a t the r e s u l t s can be c a lc u la t e d a r t i f i c a l l y in o rd e r t o comply w ith the requirem en ts o f A r t ic le 9 8 (1 ) ( a ) . In h is o p in io n what the c o n s t i t u t io n a l makers in ten d ed i s th at each time P arliam ent v o t e s on a C on stitu e n t B i l l i t should do so c o n s c io u s ly , ta k in g in t o a ccou n t the s e r io u s consequences o f i t s a c t . The o n ly im portant q u e stio n t o be answered i n r e l a t i o n t o the procedure employed by Parliam ent in e f f e c t i n g the E leven th Amendments i s why these amendments shou ld have been e f f e c t e d i n a ccord an ce w ith the p r o v is io n s o f A r t ic le 9 8 ( 1 ) (b ) as contended by the p e t i t i o n e r s and n ot under A r t ic le 9 8 (1 ) (a ) as contended by the R espon den t.1 le a rn e d co u n s e l then e l l a b o r a t e s on what P arliam ent shou ld do when a p p ly in g paragraph (a ) o r paragraph (b ) o f s u b - a r t ic le (1 ) o f A r t i c le 98. Dr. Sengondo Mvungi o b se rv e s th a t the A cts o f Union co n ta in the A r t i c l e s o f Union as t h e i r sch e d u le . That i t i s an a cce p te d p o s i t i o n i n comraonlaw th a t sch e d u le s to A cts are p a r t and p a r c e l o f such A c t s . He c i t e s the case o f T habit Nflaka - v - R e g io n a l F is h e r ie s O f f i c e r . ftloroftoro R egion . ,/l9 7 i 7 LRT n o . 24 i n su p p ort o f h is p r o p o s i t i o n . The q u e s tio n then i s whether the Union P arliam ent has powers to e f f e c t amendment o f the e n t ir e A cts o f Union, in c lu d in g the S ch edu les t o them. To him the answer i s n o, f o r the Schedule to the A cts o f Union i s a t r e a t y between two s t a t e s and as such i t can o n ly be amended by in v o k in g the p ro p e r procedure f o r amendment o f t r e a t i e s i n in t e r n a t io n a l law . He c i t e s A r t ic le 39 o f the Vienna C onvention on the law o f T r e a t ie s which p r o v id e s t h a t s - "A t r e a t y may be amended by agreement between the p a r t i e s . The m ile s l a i d down i n P art I I a p p ly to such an agreement e x c e p t i n so f a r as the t r e a t y may otherw ise p r o v i d e .” P a rt I I o f the Vienna C onvention on the Law o f T r e a t ie s s e t s out the p roced u re f o r co n c lu d in g t r e a t i e s and t h e i r e n tr y in t o fo rce . T h erefore a n a t io n a l P arliam ent i s d e v o id o f powers to e f f e c t amendment to t r e a t i e s .' Be makes the o b s e r v a tio n th a t even i f one were t o b l i n d f o l d one *3 mind t o the requ irem en ts o f law i n in t e r n a t io n a l law as p o in te d ou t a b ove, the argument t h a t 't h e in c lu s io n o f the whole o f Cap*557 i n L is t One e n t i t l e s the Union P arliam ent to e f f e c t any changes a n d /o r amendments t o th a t A ct i n accordance w ith the p r o v is io n s o f A r t ic le 9 8 (1 ) (a ) w ith ou t p a y in g regard t o o th e r p r o v is io n s o f the C o n s t it u t io n is f u t i l e and absu rd . L i s t Two o f the Second Schedule c l e a r l y s in g le s ou t m a tters th a t are p ro v id e d f o r by Cap.* 557 but which can o n ly be amended i n accord a n ce w ith the p r o v is io n s o f A r t ic le 9 8 (1 )(b ).‘ He con ten d s, a f t e r q u otin g paragraph (b ) o f s u b - a r t i c l e (1 ) o f A r t i c l e 9 8 ,th a t i t i s c le a r from th a t l i s t t h a t the E lev en th Amendment e f f e c t e d changes to u ch in g upon the a u t h o r it y o f the Government o f the U nited R e p u b lic and the a u t h o r it y o f the R e v o lu tio n a ry Government o f Z a n zib a r. That as s e t out i n paragraph 7 (1 ) o f the p e t i t i o n , the E le v e n th Amendment amended, i n t e r a l i a . A r t ic le 37 o f the C o n s t it u t io n by rem oving the P re s id e n t o f Zanzibar from the l i s t o f p e rso n s t o whom the powers o f P re s id e n t o f the U nited R e p u b lic may d e v o lv e . For A r t ic l e 3 7 (3 ) (a ) c a s t s the Second V ice P r e s id e n t as the F ir s t V ice P re sid e n t aB the f i r s t p e rso n and the secon d p e rson A in the d e v o lu t io n l i s t . Both the A r t i c l e s o f Union ( A r t i c l e (iii) ( b ) ) and the A cts o f Union (S e c t io n 5 ( c ) s p e c i f i c a l l y p ro v id e d th a t the p erson who i s P re s id e n t o f Zanzibar s h a ll be the v e ry p erson who s h a ll be the F ir s t V ice P re sid e n t o f the Union Government in the case where the P re s id e n t h a ils from the M ainland. And, fu r t h e r as s e t out i n para 7 ( i i ) o f the p e t i t i o n , the E lev en th Amendment made changes t o A r t i c l e s 47, 48, 49 and 50 o f the C o n s t it u t io n i n a manner which made i t p o s s ib le to have a V ice P re s id e n t o f the Union h a ilin g from Zanzibar who i s n o t a t the same time P re sid e n t o f Z a n zib a r. Both the T reaty o f Union ( A r t i c l e i i i ) (b ) and A cts o f Union (S e c t io n 5 ( c ) p ro v id e t h a t .P r e s id e n t o f Zanzibar s h a l l a u to m a tic a lly be V ice P r e s id e n t A o f the U nion. Thus i t i s argued th a t th ese f a c t s in d ic a t e c le a r ly th a t the changes brought by the E lev en th Amendment a f f e c t e d b o th the e x e c u tiv e a u t h o r it y o f the U nited R e p u b lic sin ce the V ice P re s id e n t o f the Union i s p a r t and p a r c e l o f th a t a u t h o r it y , and the e x e c u tiv e a u t h o r it y o f the Government o f Za n zib a r sin ce the P re s id e n t o f Zanzibar i s a ls o p a r t and p a r c e l o f th a t a u t h o r it y . Learned co u n se l having tr a c e d the h i s t o r i c a l developm ent o f our c o n s it u t io n making p ro ce d u re s , subm its th a t a t no p o in t i n time were the A r t ic le s o f Union su p ersed ed . They c o n s t it u t e the b a s ic norm r e f l e c t i n g the b i r t h o f what he terms the grundnorm o f the Tanzanian n a t io n . That b o th the A cts o f Union and the subsequent C o n s t it u t io n s d eriv e t h e i r l e g a l i t y and v a l i d i t y from t h i s b a s ic norm. He c i t e s a book e n t i t l e d The Le&al Foundations o f the Union i n Tanzania’ s Union and Zanzibar C o n s t it u t io n s : (DUP. 1990) a t page 64 paragraph 3 .3 i n e l l a b o r a t i o n o f h is su b m issio n s. He a ls o contends th a t the A r t i c l e s o f Union are u n a lt e r a b le , c i t i n g the B r i t / i s h case o f MacComick V. The Lord A dvocate. ^T95^7 S cot Law Times 22 a t page 262*’ Learned co u n se l has drawn our a t t e n t io n t o the d o c t r in e o f fundam ental change o f circu m sta n ces as i t a p p lie s to the law o f t r e a t i e s i n in t e r n a t io n a l la w .; He argues th a t change o f circu m sta n ce s p r o h ib it s p a r t i e s t o a t r e a t y from changing the t r e a t y w ith ou t the con sen t o f the o t h e r ; and th a t b rea ch o f t h i s d o c tr in e d is c h a r g e s the o th e r p a r ty from i t s c o n t r a c t u a l o b lig a t i o n s under the t r e a t y J Since the Union P arliam ent i s n o t a p a r ty t o the T re a ty o f Union, i t had no power t o e n a ct the E lev en th Amendment w ith ou t a llo w in g room f o r the p a r t ie s to r e -n e g o t ia t e th a t t r e a t y and th a t the changes cre a te d a s it u a t i o n o f c o n f l i c t between the Union Government and the R e v o lu tio n a ry Government o f Z a n zib a r. I t i s i n these circu m sta n ces th a t the p e t i t i o n e r s argue th a t the s it u a t io n w arrants summoning a S p e c ia l C o n s t it u t io n a l C ourt. On h is p a r t , Mr, Mwidunda, le a rn e d State A ttorn ey app earin g f o r the resp on d en t con ten d s th a t the E leven th Amendment was l e g a l l y en a cted by the Union P arliam ent i n f u l l com pliance w ith A r t ic l e 9 8 (1 ) (a ) o f the C o n s t it u t io n .’ I t i s h is su bm ission that as p ro v id e d by A r t ic le 9 8 (1 ) the Union P arliam ent has c o n s t i t u t io n a l mandate t o e n a ct law f o r the purpose o f e f f e c t i n g changes i n the C o n s t it u t io n . In doing so P arliam ent i s bound by c o n s t i t u t io n a l p rocedure as l a i d down in A r t ic le 9 8 (1 ) (a ) and 9 8 (1 ) ( b ) . He a rgu es th a t i n e n a c tin g the E lev en th Amendment P arliam ent was n o t bound t o comply w ith A r t ic le 9 8 ( l ) ( b ) . This A r t i c l e , he sa y s, p r o v id e s f o r a * procedure f o r e f f e c t i n g changes in r e s p e c t o f m a tters l i s t e d in 'Nyongeza ya P i l i 1 - Orodha ya P i l l . For P arliam ent t o change those e ig h t l i s t e d m atters^he sa y s, the enactm ent must be approved by two q u a rte rs ( s i c ) o f the counted v o t e s o f Members o f P arliam ent from the Mainland and the same number o f counted v o t e s o f Members o f P arliam ent from the I s l e s , I t i s h i s c o n te n tio n th a t the c o n te s te d amendment e f f e c t e d changes i n the fo llo w in g m a tte r s j- (i) one V ice P r e s id e n t who w i l l be p r i n c i p a l A s s is ta n t to the P re sid e n t i n u n ion m atters : - ( i i ) p e r io d which the V ice P re sid e n t assumes the mandate o f the V ice P r e s id e n t ; (iii) oath o f the V ice P r e s id e n t; and ( i v ) tenure o f o f f i c e o f the V ice P re sid e n t* He subm its th a t changes e f f e c t e d i n A r t i c l e s 47, 48, 49 and 50 are n ot among the e ig h t m atters l i s t e d i n Nyongeza ya P i l i . Orodha ya P i l i as p ro v id e d i n the C o n s t it u t io n . In v iew o f t h is f a c t , P arliam ent i n e n a ctin g Act N o.34 o f 1994 was n o t bound to comply w ith p r o v is io n s o f A r t ic le 9 8 ( 1 ) (b ) as the p e t i t i o n e r s con ten d . Hence he subm its th a t by a d o p tin g the p roced u re p ro v id e d f o r in A r t ic le 9 8 ( 1 ) (a ) i n e n a c tin g A ct No.34 o f 1994 P arliam ent a cte d p r o p e r ly and l e g a l l y i n terms o f A r t ic l e 9 8 ( 1 ) (a ) o f the C o n s titu tio n o f the U nited R e p u b lic. The resp on d en t, t h e r e f o r e , subm its th a t P arliam ent d id n ot v i o l a t e any A r t ic le o f the C o n s t it u t io n and th a t there was no p ro ce d u ra l e r r o r . I t i s the fu r t h e r c o n te n tio n o f the respondent th a t even i f the v o t e s were t o be cou n ted , the number o f Members o f P arliam ent from Zanzibar su p p ortin g the B i l l f o r Act No.34 o f 1994 was more than two q u a rte rs ( s i c ) o f t o t a l v o t e s from Members o f Parliam ent h a ilin g from Zanzibar and more than two q u a rters ( s i c ) v o t e s o f the Members o f P arliam ent from M ainland.’ V/e b e lie v e i t to be a la p su s lin g u a b when Mr. Mwidunda says two q u a rte rs in s te a d as t w o -t h ir d s . Be th a t as i t may* he subm its th a t even i f the enactment o f Act No.34 o f 1992fwas supposed t o be done under A r t ic le 9 8 ( 1 ) (b ) then P a rlia m en t, as a m atter o f f a c t , com p lied w ith A r t ic le 9 8 (1 ) ( b ) o f the C o n s t it it u io n .' A ccord in g t o le a rn e d co u n se l com pliance w ith A r t ic le 9 8 ( 1 ) (b ) i s su p p orted by the Hansard R eport co n ta in e d i n the su pplim entary l i s t o f documents form ing p a r t o f the p e t i t i o n . In the Hansard R eport o n ly f i v e members o f P arliam ent opposed the B i l l . These members o f P arliam ent are l i s t e d i n Hansard R eport as No. 73, 80, 93, 102 and 1 37. He subm its th a t out the f i v e Members o f P arliam ent who v o te d to oppose the B i l l th ree o f them were from I S l«=S jthe _ are l i s t e d as 73 , 80 and 93. The two Members o f P arliam ent /v * from Tanzania Mainland whoop^ ° ? e ^the B i l l are l i s t e d i n the Hansard R eport a s N o.102 and 137. R egarding whether the amendment v i o l a t e d the Treary o f Union when the l e g i s l a t i o n was p a ssed i n the absence o f a r e n e g o t ia t e d T rea ty between Tanganyika and Z an zibar, Mr. Mwidunda subm its th a t A r t ic le 9 8 (1 ) and (2 ) o f the C o n s t it u t io n g iv e s P arliam ent mandate t o e f f e c t any change t o the C o s n t it u t io n s u b je c t to procedure p ro v id e d t h e r e in . In A r t ic le 9 8 (2 ) o f the C o n s t it u t io n , i t i s p ro v id e d th a tj MKwa madhurauni ya u fa fa n u z i wa m asharti ya ib a ra ndogo ya k u b a d ilis h a K atiba au m asharti ya sh e ria maana yake ifaham ike kuwa n i ' pamoja na ku rekebisha na ku sa h ih ish a m asharti haya au ku fu ta na kuweka m asharti mengine badala yake au k u s i s i t i z a au k u b a d ilia h a matumizi ya m asharti hayo.*' So P arliam ent by e n a ctin g A ct No. 34 o f 1994 was r e p e a lin g and r e p la c in g A r t i c l e s 47, 48, 49 and 50 o f the C o n s titu tio n i n view o f the mandate p ro v id e d by A r t ic le 9 8 ( 2 ) . Thus the averment in para 3 ( i i ) o f the p e t i t i o n th a t P arliam ent a c te d u lt r a v i r e s in e n a c tin g Act No.34 o f 1994 i n the absence o f a r e n e g o t ia t e d T rea ty between Tanganyika and Zanzibar has no l e g a l b a s is i n the C o n s t it u t io n o r in any o th e r law . The le a rn e d State A tto rn e y contends th a t the A r t i c l e s o f Union were meant t o s u b s is t w ith l e g a l f o r c e u n t i l the enactm ent o f the Union C o n s t it u t io n . He c i t e s Roman ( i i ) o f the Schedule t o the A r t i c l e s o f Union w hich p r o v id e s t h a t :— "D uring the p e r io d from commencement the Union u n t i l the C o n stitu e n t Assembly p r o d d e d f o r in A r tic le (v ii) s h a l l have met and adopted a c o n s t i t u t io n f o r the United R e p u b lic ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as the In te rim P e rio d ) the United R e p u b lic s h a ll be governed i n a ccord a n ce w ith the p r o v is io n s o f A r t i c l e s ( i i i ) to ( i v ) . '1 I t i s ^respondent*s su bm ission th a t the A r t i c l e s o f Union cea sed to have l e g a l f o r c e upon a d o p tio n o f the Union C o n s t it u t io n i n 1977. The respond d e n ie s th a t the amendment o f A r t i c l e s 47, 48, 49 and 50 o f the C o n s titu tio n v i o l a t e d b a s ic c o n s t i t u t i o n a l norms o f the Tanzania S ta te . Nor d o e s the amendment c o n f l i c t w ith the b a s ic d o c t r in e o f custom ary in t e r n a t io n a l law and the n a t io n a l law as t o endanger the c o n s t i t u t io n a l o rd e r and l e g a l i t y o f the rthe Union.' I t i s r, e sp on d en t, s subm ission th a t A ct N o.34 o f 1994 now A. form s p a r t o f our C o n stitu tio n .* T h e re fo re , A ct N o.34 o f 1994 b ein g p a r t o f the C o n s titu tio n cannot be v a l i d l y ch a llen g ed on grounds o f u n c o n s t it u t io n a lit y .' As p a r t o f the C o n s t it u t io n the p r o v is io n s o f the E le v e n th Amendment are n ot i n any way in c o n s is t e n t o r incom partable w ith any o th e r p a r t o f the C o n stitu tio n # On the .p o s itio n o f the P re s id e n t o f Zanzibar as p e r A r t i c l e s o f Union, the respondent submits- th a t A r t i c l e s o f Union were o n ly a tem porary l e g a l arrangement which p ro v id e d governance d u rin g the t r a n s i t i o n a l p e r io d pending enactm ent o f the C o n s t it u t io n . Ha co n clu d e s h is su b m ission s w ith the c o n te n tio n th a t whether o r n o t a c o n f l i c t e x i s i s t s between the United R e p u b lic o f Tanzania and the R e v o lu a tio n a ry Government o f Zanzibar i s a q u e stio n o f f a c t and th ere i s no ev id en ce t o t h a t e f f e c t . It is a ls o p a r t o f re sp o n d e n t’ s su bm ission th a t th ere i s no c o n f l i c t between the two governm ents t o warrant the summoning o f the S p e c ia l C o n s t it u t io n a l Court m a o n v»*»CKi f o r the purpose o f in t e r p r e t in g or e x e c u t io n o f any c o n s t i t u t io n a l m atter i n d isp u te between the two governm ents. In view o f the e x i s i s t in g circu m sta n ce s i t i s the r e s p o n d e n t's subm ission th a t th e re i s no l e g a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r is s u in g such an o rd e r. We now tu rn t o c o n s id e r the grounds upon which the p e t i t i o n i s founded.- We propose t o determ ine them s e r ia t im . I t i s contended i n the f i r s t ground th a t the E lev en th Amendment i s n u l l and v o id and th a t as a r e s u lt i t has no* l e g a l fo r c e a t a l l . This ground i s based on the co n te n tio n th a t when e n a ctin g the amendment the Union P arliam ent e r r e d i n p ro ce d u re .' A ccord in g t o co u n se l the amendment ought t o have been made pursuant t o A r t ic le 9 8 ( 1 ) (b ) o f the C o n s t it u t io n in s te a d o f under paragraph (a ) o f A r t ic le 9 8 ( 1 ) .’ It is common ground th a t the p rocedure th a t must be f o llo w e d ' when a l t e r i n g any p r o v is io n o f the C o n s t it u t io n i s p ro v id e d f o r under A r t i c le 9 8 ( 1 ) . I t p r o v id e s : ” 9 8 (1 ) P arliam ent may e n a ct l e g i s l a t i o n f o r a l t e r i n g any p r o v is io n o f t h is C o n s t it u t io n i n accordan ce w ith the f o llo w in g p r i n c i p l e s : (a ) A B i l l f o r an A ct t o a l t e r any p r o v is io n o f t h i s C o n s t it u t io n (o t h e r than those r e la t in g t o paragraph ( b ) o f t h is s u b - a r t i c l e o r any p r o v is io n o f any law s p e c i f i e d i n L is t One o f the Second Schedule t o t h i s C o n s t it u t io n s h a ll be supported by the v o t e s o f n o t l e s s than t w o -t h ir d s o f a l l the Members o f P a rlia m en t; (b ) A b i l l f o r an A ct to a l t e r the p r o v is io n s o f t h i s C o n s t it u t io n or any p r o v is io n o f any law r e la t in g t o any o f the m a tters s p e c i f i e d i n l i s t Two o f the Second Schedule to t h is C o n s t it u t io n s h a ll be p assed o n ly i f i t i s supported by the v o t e s o f n o t l e s s than tw o -t h ir d s o f a l l Members o f P arliam ent from Mainland Tanzania and n o t l e s s than t w o -th ir d s o f a l l Members o f P arliam ent from Tanzania Z a n z ib a r .11 A ccord in g t o L is t One o f the Second Schedule the f o llo w in g are the m a tters th a t may be a lt e r e d with the su p p ort o f a t .le a s t tw o -th ir d s o f a l l M.embers o f P a rlia m en t: - 1. the R e p u b lic o f Tanganyika (C o n se q u e n tia l , T r a n s is t io n a l and Temporary p r o v is io n s ) A ct, 1962 (Cap. 500) S e c t io n s 3, 17, 18 23 and 26; 2. The C i v i l S e rv ice A ct, 1962 (C a p .509) S e ctio n s 22, 23 and 24. 3 . the J u d ic ia l S e rv ice A ct, 1962 (Cap. 508) s e c t io n s 22, 23 and 24; 4 , the whole Act o f Union between Tanganyika and Zanzibar (Cap. 557)• M a tters i n L is t Two the amendment o f which r e q u ir e s t o be supported by v o t e s o f two—t h ir d s o f a l l Members o f P arliam ent from Mainland Tanzania and a lik e number o f v o t e s o f a l l Members o f P arliam ent from Tanzania Zanzibar are the f o l l o w i n g : - 1 . the e x is t e n c e o f the United R e p u b lic ; 2 . the e x is t e n c e o f the O ffic e o f P re sid e n t o f the U nited R e p u b lic ; 3 . the a u t h o r it y o f the Government o f the U nited R e p u b lic ; 4 . the e x is t e n c e o f the P arliam ent o f the U nited R e p u b lic ; 5. the a u t h o r it y o f the Government o f Z an zibar; 6 . the High Court o f Z a n zib a r; 7 . the l i s t o f Union m a tte rs; and 8 . the number o f Members o f P arliam ent from Z a n zib a r. There i s no c o n tr o v e r s y whatever th a t P arliam ent adopted the p roced u re under A r t ic le 9 8 ( 1 ) (a ) when p a s s in g the B i l l th a t u lt im a t e ly en a cted the E le v e n th Amendment. Learned co u n se l f o r the p e t i t i o n e r s argues th a t P arliam ent vrent wrong i n so d o in g . Mr. F id e l Mwidunda, lea rn ed State S t t o m e y , appearing f o r the resp on d en t, advances a r i v a l p r o p o s it i o n . He would have us say th a t the c o n te n tio u s enactm ent was p r o c e d u r a lly p r o p e r . Now whether o r n o t Parliam ent s lip p e d in t o e r r o r the p e t i t i o n e r s must prove th a t the m atters t h a t were l e g i s l a t e d on are co v e re d in L is t Two o f the Second S ch ed u le. T h is, th en , b r in g s us t o m a tters th a t were l e g i s l a t e d on i n the E le v e n th Amendment which co v e r s A r t i c l e s 47, 4 8 , 49# 50 and 102r. A r t i c l e s 47, 48, 49 r e la t e t o the o f f i c e o f the V ice P re s id e n t o f the U nited R e p u b lic, B efore the c o n te s te d amendment the O ffic e o f V ice P r e s id e n t was p ro v id e d f o r under ch a p ter IV o f the In te rim C o n s t it u t io n and was adopted in the 1977 C o n s t it u t io n . A r t ic le 5 3 (2 ) o f the In terim C o n s t it u t io n p r o v id e s t h a t s - ” (2 ) The head o f the E xecu tiv e f o r Z a n zib a r s h a ll be the V ice P re s id e n t o f the United R e p u b lic a p p oin ted f o r such p u rp ose, and he s h a ll be s t y le d the P re s id e n t o f Z a n z ib a r .” The fo r e g o in g p r o v is io n s t r a c e t h e ir o r ig i n from A r t ic le (iii)(b ) o f the A r t i c l e s o f Union between the R e p u b lic o f Tanganyika and the P e o p le s R e p u b lic o f Z a n zib a r. The A r t i c l e s o f Union are a Schedule t o the Union o f Tanganyika and Z an zibar A ct, Cap. 557. They p rov id e "(i) .... (ii) ••.• ( i i i ) During the in te r im p e r io d the C o n s titu tio n o f the United R e p u b lic s h a l l be the C o s n titu tio n o f Tanganyika so m o d ifie d a t t o p rov id e f o r - (a ) . . . (b ) the o f f i c e s o f two V ic e -P r e s id e n t s one o f whom (b e in g a p e rso n n orm a lly r e s id e n t i n Z anzibar) s h a ll be the head o f the a fo r e s a id e x e c u tiv e in and f o r Zanzibar and s h a l l be the p r i n c i p a l a s s is t a n t o f the P re s id e n t o f the United R e p u b lic i n the d isch a rg e o f h is e x e c u tiv e fu n c t io n s i n r e l a t i o n t o Zanzibar . . . ” . - 19 The E le v e n th Amendment has in tro d u ce d an e n t i r e l y new procedure f o r the a c c e s s io n t o the o f f i c e o f V ice P r e s id n e t . In d if f e r e n c e w ith the a p p o in tiv e nature i n the a c c e s s io n t o th a t o f f i c e b e fo r e the Amendment, the V ice P re sid e n c y i s now an e l e c t i v e o ffic e . There i s no lo n g e r a requirem en t f o r two V ice P r e s id e n t s , one o f whom should have come from Z a n zib a r. The cu r re n t p o s i t i o n as p ro v id e d f o r under A r t ic l e 4 7 (1 ) i s t h i s : - " ( 1 ) There s h a l l be a V ice P r e s id e n t, who s h a ll be the p r in c i p a l a s s is t a n t t o the P re s id e n t in r e s p e c t o f a l l the m a tters i n the United R e p u b lic g e n e r a lly and, in p a r t ic u l a r , s h a ll — (a ) a s s i s t the P re s id e n t in making a fo llo w -u p on the d a y -to -d a y im plem en tation o f Union m a tters . We are o f the v ie w th a t the p re se n t o f f i c e o f V ice P re s id e n t has e v i ctor pow ers than the p o s i t i o n was b e fo r e the enactm ent o f the E lev en th Amendment. Whatever powers th a t may be e n jo y e d i n the p o r t i f o l i o o f V ice P r e s id e n t , i t i s the c o n te n tio n o f le a rn e d cou n se l f o r the p e t i t i o n e r s th a t the procedu re through which the Amendment was passed does n o t conform t o the l e t t e r and s p i r i t o f the A r t i c l e s o f Union# At t h i s stage i t i s opportune t o say t h a t we are a t one w ith le a rn e d co u n se l th a t any l e g i s l a t i o n , in c lu d in g c o n s t i t u t io n a l < amendments, may be en a cted o n ly i n such manner and form a s i s p r e s c r ib e d by the law. If, t h e r e fo r e , an A ct, in c lu d in g the c o n s t i t u t io n i t s e l f , la y s down a s p e c i f i c procedu re to be fo llo w e d b e fo r e i t may be a lt e r e d , a l e g i s l a t i v e e x e r c is e th a t w i l l ig n o re i t w i l l n o t have been passed i n the manner and form p r e s c r ib e d by th a t la w . I t f o llo w s th a t such l e g i s l a t i o n cannot be s a id to be an A ct o f P a rlia m en t. We may draw some a u t h o r it y f o r t h i s p r o p o s it i o n o f law, though o f a p e rsu a siv e n a tu re , from the d e c is i o n o f the P riv y C o u n cil i n B rib e ry Commissioner v , R anasinghe. A*c * 172» Lord ? ea rce s a id ^ s a t page 197s- ” (A) L e g is la tu r e has no power t o ig n ore the c o n d it io n s o f law making th a t are imposed by the intrum ent which i t s e l f r e g u la t e s i t s power t o make law.* T his r e s t r i c t i o n e x i s t s in d e p e n d e n tly o f the q u e stio n whether the l e g i s la t u r e i s s o v e re ig n •••", Whether o r n o t P arliam ent e rre d in p roced u re or th a t i t ig n o re d i t s own l e g i s l a t i v e p r a c t ic e w i l l l a r g e l y depend on the c o n s t r u c t io n o f A r t ic le 9 8 (1 ) (a ) and ( b ) . I t w i l l a ls o depend i n p a r t on whether there i s e v id e n ce th a t P arliam ent e rre d i n what tra n s p ir e d d u rin g the P a rliam en tary d e lib e r a t io n s as r e p o rte d in the Hansard, I n co n s tr u in g th ese p r o v is io n s we are a liv e t o the need t o a p p ly w e ll- e s t a b lis h e d r u le s th a t govern the in t e r p r e t a t i o n o f c o n s t i t u t io n a l p r o v is io n s . In deed , in tandem w ith r u le s o f c o n s t r u c t io n , p a r t ic u la r r e s p e c t must be p a id t o the language th a t has been employed and the h i s t o r i c a l background from which the contentionalAm endm ent o r ig i n a t e s . In t h i s regard i t seems t o us t o be q u ite c le a r th a t the « a r c h i t e c t s o f the Union and the fram ers o f the C o n s titu tio n d id n ot in te n d th a t c e r t a in p r o v is io n s be amended as e a s i l y as o th e r p r o v is io n s . That e x p la in s why A r t ic le 98 has been made amenable to amendment o n ly by s p e c ia l p ro ce d u re s im posing more d i f f i c u l t and h e a v ie r m a jo r it ie s o f Members o f P arliam ent who must su p p ort any a l t e r a t i o n . By the nature o f these p r o v is io n s , o rd in a ry p r e s c r i p t io n s o f s t a t u t o r y c o n s tr u c t io n w)Lould n o t be the most J• 9 a p p r o p r ia te . As D ic k s o n ,a p tly put i t in the Canadian case o f A Hunter v .‘ Southern I n c , (1985) 11 DLR (4 th ) 641 (5CC) a t page 6 4 9 :- "The task o f expounding a c o n s t i t u t io n i s c r u c i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from th a t o f co n s tr u in g a s t a t u t e . A s ta tu te d e fin e s p re s e n t r i g h t s and o b l ig a t i o n s . It is e a s i l y en a cted and e a s i l y r e p e a le d . A c o n s t i t u t io n , by c o n t r a s t , i s d r a fte d w ith an eye t o the fu tu re^ I t s fu n c t io n i s to p ro v id e a co n tin u in g framework f o r the le g it im a t e e x e r c is e o f governm ental power and ••••' once .renacted, i t s p r o v is io n s cannot e a s i l y be r e p e a le d and amended. I t must, t h e r e f o r e , be capable o f growth and developm ent o v e r time t o meet new s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l and h i s t o r i c a l r e a l i t i e s o f t e n unimagined by i t s fra m e rs, The ju d i c ia r y i s the guardian o f the C o n s titu tio n and must, i n in t e r p r e t in g i t s p r o v is io n s , b e a r these c o n d it io n s in m in d .” So the in t e r p r e t a t i o n o f A r t i c le 9 8 (1 ) sh ou ld be such as i t w i l l meet the ju s t demands and a s p ir a t io n s o f the p e o p le who seek p r o t e c t i o n under the C o n s t it u t io n . The i n t e r p r e t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , shou ld be a broad one and n o t narrow and p e d a n t ic , so as to g iv e fu ll e ffe c t to it s s p ir it. That t h is should be so i s f a i r l y < o b v io u s, f o r as we a l l know the C o n s titu tio n i s the spreme law o f the la n d . The people own and r e t a in i t w ith ou t f o r f e i t u r e when e l e c t i n g a new government* At t h i s sta g e , and a p p ly in g the above p r i n c i p l e s o f c o n s t i t u t io n a l in t e r p r e t a t io n , we pe oe to ask o u r s e lv e s t h is 'N q u e s tio n : d id P arliam ent e r r as a lle g e d by the p e t i t i o n e r s ? The answer r e s i d e s in A r t ic le 9 8 ( 1 ) . The p e t i t i o n e r s contend th a t the c o r r e c t p r o v is io n s are those co n ta in e d i n paragraph (b ) o f s u b -a r tic le (1 ) o f th a t A r t ic le which r e l a t e s t o a l i s t o f m a tters as th ey appear i n the Second S ch ed u le, There are e ig h t m a tters th a t appear i n th a t s ch e d u le . Learned co u n se l f o r the p e t i t i o n e r s , n o r do the p e t i t i o n e r s th em selv es, p o in t out which item has been the s u b je c t o f amendment th a t has been a lt e r e d co n tra ry t o p ro ce d u re . As i t i s p la in in the arguments by c o u n s e l, the c o n te n tio u s amendment r e l a t e s t o the A r t i c l e s o f Union under which the o f f i c e s o f V ice P r e s id e n ts o f the U nited R e p u b lic are p ro v id e d f o r . The A r t i c l e s o f Union form the Schedule t o the Union o f Tanganyika and Z a n zibar A ct, Cap, 557. T his l e g i s l a t i o n f a l l s under L is t One i n the Second Schedule t o which A r t i c l e 9 8 ( 1 ) (a ) a p p li e s . As Dr, Mvungi c o r r e c t l y p o in t s o u t, i t i s one o f the e s t a b lis h e d p r i n c i p l e s th a t i n co n s tr u in g s t a t u t o r y p r o v is io n s sch ed u les t o A cts are p a r t and p a r c e l o f such A c ts , I t f o l l o w s , t h e r e fo r e , th a t the p roced u re by which the Union o f Tanganyika and Zanzibar A ct may be a lt e r e d e q u a lly axDplies t o the A r t i c l e s o f Union, In th a t circum stan ce we now h o ld th a t Parlia»S>n:b a cte d p r o c e d u r a lly c o r r e c t when i t en a cted the E lev en th Amendment by which the A r t i c l e s o f Union as reg a rd s the O f f ic e s o f V ice P re s id e n ts were a lt e r e d by a b o lis h in g the two V ice P r e s id e n c ie s and e s t a b lis h in g one V ice P re s id e n t i n terms o f A r t ic le 47 (1 ) o f the C o n s t it u t io n , The f i r s t ground would f a i l as a r e s u l t . I t i s a lle g e d in the second ground th a t the Union P arliam ent a c te d o u tsid e o f i t s l e g i s l a t i v e powers i n terms o f the A r t i c l e s o f Union i n e f f e c t i n g amendments t o A r t i c l e s 37, 47, 48 , 49 , 50 and 102 o f our C o n s t it u t io n i n the absence o f a r e -n e g o t ia t e d t r e a t y . I t i s argued i n th a t c o n n e c tio n th a t the E lev en th Amendment e f f e c t e d changes tou ch in g upon the a u t h o r it y o f the Union Government and th a t o f Z a n zib a r. In p a r tic u la r , i t i s contended th a t the amendment o f A r t ic le 37 was e rro n e o u s by rem oving the P re sid e n t o f Z an zibar from the l i s t o f p e rso n s t o whom the pow ers o f P r e s id e n t o f the U nited R e p u b lic may d e v o lv e . That th a t i s so because A r t ic le 37 c a s t s the F ir s t V ice p r e s id e n t as the f i r s t p e rso n and the Second V ice P r e s id e n t as the secon d p e rso n i n the d e v o lu t io n l i s t . True, as le a rn e d co u n se l f o r the p e t i t i o n e r s subm its, b oth A r t i c l e (iii)(b ) of the A r t i c l e s o f Union and s e c t io n 5 ( c ) o f the Act o f Union, Cap. 557, s p e c i f i c a l l y p rov id e th a t the V ice P r e s id e n t h a ilin g from Zanzibar s h a l l a ls o be s t y le d a s the P re s id e n t o f Z a n zibar. On h is p a r t Mr. llwidunda, le a rn e d State A tto rn e y , con ten d s th a t P arliam ent a cte d in t r a v i r e s i t s powers when i t en a cted the E leven th Amendment because A r t ic le 9 8 (1 ) and (2 ) g iv e s i t the mandate t o do s o . Thus L t had a u t h o r it y t o r e p e a l and t o r e -e n a c t A r t i c l e s 47, 48, 49 and 50. « Whether o r n ot P arliam ent a cted u lt r a v i r e s i t s l e g i s l a t i v e a u th o r ity l i e s i n the c o n s t r u c t io n o f A r t ic le 9 8 . We have a lre a d y h eld th a t Parliam ent had a u t h o r it y t o do s o . We think Parliam ent was r ig h t because our C o n s titu tio n ., li k e any o th e r, i s an o rg a n ic document. I t must adapt to the tim e s; i t must go ^ r^ cL jt: h b r o it o f the p o l i t i c a l r e a l i t y . When the A r t i c l e s o f Union were put in p la c e , the a r c h it e c t s o f our Union had o n ly a o n e -p a rty s ta te i n mind* So ir r e s p e c t i v e o f whoever was t o be i n the saddle i n Z a n zib a r, he o r she had t o be a member o f the m o n o lith ic p a r ty governm ent. We take j u d i c i a l n o t ic e o f the in t r o d u c t io n o f the p o l i t i c a l m u ltip a rtism which has lo n g sin ce ushered i n p lu r a l p o l i t i c s . There i s now a r e a l p o s s i b i l i t y th a t the p o l i t i c a l p a r ty th a t may form the Union Government may n ot n e ce s s a ry g e t enough e l e c t o r a l support to form the Zanzibar Government^ We cannot assume th a t always one p o l i t i c a l p a r ty w i l l be re tu rn e d to power i n the United R e p u b lic and i n Z a n zib a r. I f th a t o c c u r s , and i f the E lev en th Amendment was not in p la c e , then we would have the P re s id e n t o f the U nited R e p u b lic b e lo n g in g t o one p o l i t i c a l p a r ty w hile the V ice P re s id e n t from Zanzibar b e lo n g in g t o a n oth er p o l i t i c a l p a r ty . We have y e t as a n a t io n to undergo some experim ent t o e s t a b lis h i f such an arrangement cou ld be the r ig h t c o n s t i t u t io n a l mechanism through which the n a t io n a l in h e r it e n c e o f s ta te power cou ld d evolve t o a V ice P re s id e n t who has formed a Government upon h is own p o l i t i c a l p la tfo r m . So, alth ou gh the language o f the C o n s t it u t io n d oes n o t change, changing circu m sta n ces o f a dynamio s o c i e t y f o r which i t i was d esign ed may g iv e r is e t o new and f u l l e r im port t o i t s m eaning. And i f we are t o g iv e e f f e c t t o the s p i r i t and purpose o f our C o n s t it u t io n , the i n i t i a l arrangement was to ensure th a t no one p a r t ic u la r p a r t o f the United R ep u b lic s h a ll m onopolise s ta te pow er. Thus the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l requirem ent th a t the P re s id e n t and the V ice P re s id e n t s h a l l n o t come from one o f the c o n s t it u e n t p a r ts o f the Union, For th ese rea son s the second ground would f a i l as w e ll because the changes d id n o t , i n any, a f f e c t the e x e c u tiv e a u t h o r it y o f e i t h e r the United R e p u b lic o r o f the Zanzibar R e v o lu tio n a ry Government. In rea ch in g t h is d e c is io n we have co n s id e r e d the s c h o la r ly o p in io n o f P r o fe s s o r I s s a G. S h iv ji.' We are a t one w ith him t o the e x t e n t th a t in d eed — " . . . the a d o p tio n o f the 1977 C o n s t it u t io n d id n o t mark a break i n l e g a l c o n t in u it y i n Tanzania . . . ” f o r i t owes i t s l e g a l f o r c e from the A r t i c l e s o f Union which are p a r t and p a r c e l o f the A cts o f Union* Dr. Mvungi con ten d s, w ith jrerve and c l a r i t y , th a t the A r t i c l e s o f Union form the t r e a t y th a t gave b i r t h t o the Union. They a r e , t h e r e f o r e , u n ia l t e r a b le . They are im rauttable, so t o speak. He c i t e s the E n g lis h case o f MacComock v . The Lord A dvocate. S co t Law Times 225, 262, p a r t i c u l a r l y the fo llo w in g e x e r p t th a t appears a t page 11 o f h is w r itte n s u b m is s io n :- ” . . . An Act o f Parliam ent which was in c o n s is t e n t w ith the u n a lte ra b le p r o v is io n s o f the A r t i c l e s o f Union would be n ot o n ly u n law fu l but a ls o p ro b a b ly u n j u s t i c i a b l e . . . " . i I t i s le a rn e d c o u n s e l's subm ission th a t where c o n f l i c t a r is e s as i s the oarse case i n t h is p e t i t i o n , then the A r t i c l e s o f Union shou ld p r e v a i l. . Mr. Kwidunda has made v e r y b r i e f su bm issions reg a rd in g the u n a l t e r a b i l i t y o f the A r t i c l e s o f Union. He con ten ds th a t th ey were meant t o s u b s is t w ith l e g a l fo r c e u n t i l the enactm ent o f the Union C o n s t it u t io n was p u t in p la c e . He r e l i e s on A r t i c l e d ii) o f the A r t i c l e s o f U nion, appended as a sch edu le t o Cap. 557, which p r o v id e s t h a t : - "D uring the p e r io d from the commencement o f the u n ion u n t i l the C o n stitu e n t Assembly p ro v id e d f o r i n A r t ic le ( i v ) s h a ll have met and adopted a C o n s titu tio n f o r the U nited R e p u b lic (h e r e in a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as the in te r im p e r io d ) the U nited R e p u b lic s h a ll be governed i n a ccord an ce w ith the p r o v is io n s o f A r tic le s ( i i i ) to ( v i ) . M We w i l l rep rod u ce A r t i c l e s ( i i i ) t o (v ) f o r ease o f r e fe r e n c e "(iii) During the in te r im p e r io d the C o n s titu tio n o f the United R e p u b lic s h a ll be the C o n s t it u t io n o f Tanganyika so m o d ifie d as t o p ro v id e f o r - (a ) a sep a ra te l e g i s l a t u r e and e x e c u tiv e i n and f o r Zanzibar a s from time t o time c o n s t it u t e d i n a ccord a n ce w ith the e x i s t i n g law o f Z an zibar and having e x c lu s iv e a u t h o r it y w ith in Zanzibar f o r m a tters o th e r than those re se r v e d t o the P arliam ent and E xecu tiv e o f the U nited R e p u b lic ; (b ) the o f f i c e s o f two V ic e -P r e s id e n t s one o f whom (b e in g a p e rso n n orm a lly r e s id e n t i n Z an zib a r) s h a ll be the head o f the a f o r e s a id e x e c u tiv e i n and f o r Zanzibar and s h a l l be the i p r i n c i p a l a s s is t a n t o f the P re s id e n t f o r h is e x e cu tiv e f u n c t i o n s 'i n r e l a t i o n t o Z a n zib a r; ( c ) the r e p r e s e n t a t io n o f Zanzibar i n the P arliam ent o f the U nited R e p u b lic; ( d ) such o th e r m atters as may be e x p e d ie n t o r d e s ir a b le to g iv e e f f e c t t o the U nited R ep u blic and t o these A r t ic le s ^ There s h a l l be re se rv e d t o the P arliam ent and E xecu tiv e o f the U nited R e p u b lic the f o llo w in g m atters — (a ) The C o n s titu tio n and Govemment o f the U nited R e p u b lic ; (b E x te rn a l A f f a i r s ; (c D e fe n ce ; (d P o li c e ; (e Emergency Pow ers; (f C it iz e n s h ip ; (g Im m igration ; (h E x te rn a l trade and b o rro w in g ; (i The P u b lic S e rv ice o f the United R e p u b lic ; (k H arbours, c i v i l a v ia t io n , p o s t s and te le g r a p h s . And the s a id Parliam ent and E xecu tive s h a ll have e x c lu s iv e a u t h o r it y i n such m atters through out and f o r the p u rp oses o f the U nited R e p u b lic and in a d d it io n e x c lu s iv e a u t h o r it y in r e s p e c t o f a l l o th e r m a tters i n and f o r Tanganyika. (v ) The e x i s t i n g laws o f Tanganyika and o f Z an zibar s h a ll rem ain i n fo r c e i n t h e i r r e s p e c t iv e t e r r i t o r i e s s u b je c t - (a ) t o any p r o v is io n made lie re a f t e r by a compe te n t le g i s l a t u r e ; (b ) t o such p r o v is io n as may be made by o rd e r by the P re sid e n t o f the U nited R e p u b lic f o r the e x te n s io n t o Z anzibar o f any lav/ r e la t in g t o any o f the m a tte rs s e t out i n A r t ic le ( i v ) , end the r e v o c a t io n o f any corre sp o n d in g law o f Z an zibar; ( c ) to such amendments as may be e x p e d ie n t o r d e s ir a b le t o g iv e e f f e c t t o the Union and t o these A r t i c l e s . We have, a f t e r h ea rin g b o th le a rn e d c o u n s e l, form ed the v iew th a t Mr. Mwidunda's v ie w s on the e f f i c a c y o f the A r t i c l e s o f Union are n o t o n ly u n te n a b le , th ey a ls o la c k p e r s u a s io n . It d oes n o t seem t o us t o be c o r r e c t t o say th a t v a l i d i t y o f the A r t i c l e s o f Union e x p ire d upon the p rom a lg a tion o f a Union C o n s t it u t io n . Were i t £ so the fram ers shou ld have sa id so q u ite c le a r ly . We h o ld , t h e r e f o r e , th a t the A r t i c l e s o f Union are p a rt o f the c o n s t i t u t io n a l law o f the U nited R e p u b lic. In t h i s c o n te x t we f i n d some l o g i c i n P r o fe s s o r I s s a G. S h i v j i 's commentary i n h is book e n t i t l e d The L egal F oun dations o f the Union in T a n z a n ia 's Union and Z a n zib a r. DUP. 199, para 3 .3 a t page 64 where he s t a t e s t h a t : - ”... The tru e L egal p o s i t i o n i s th a t the 1977 C o n s titu tio n d e r iv e s i t s f o r c e from the p r e - e x i s t i n g A cts o f Union which con tin u e to operate . We, however, do n ot think th a t they o v e rrid e the Union C o n s titu tio n as a s s e r t s P r o fe s s o r S h i v j i . The is s u e h ere, then, i s whether the A r t ic le s o f Union are u n a lt e r a b le . I t i s a t th is stage th a t we w i l l c o n s id e r the e x te n t t o which MackComick' 3 case (su p ra ) i s r e le v a n t t o our circu m sta n ce s. M acCom ick's case t r a c e s i t s o r i g i n from 1707 when'the « P arliam en ts o f England and S cotla n d passed A cts o f Union r a t i f y i n g the T rea ty o f Union and c r e a t in g the new P arliam ent o f Great B r it a in . S ch o la rs o f E n g lish ju risp ru d en ce argue th a t the A c t 3 o f Union, a ls o r e fe r r e d t o as the c o n t it u e n t A cts, brought i n t o b ein g a new s ta te and a new P a rlia m en t: (see M it c h e ll, C o n s t it u t io n a l Law. 2nd E d it io n 1968 pages 69 to 74)r#: In Great B r ita in c e r t a in p r o v is io n s o f the T reaty o f IMion were d e c la r e d to be fundam ental and u n a lt e r a b le ’. Whether o r n o t such p r o v is io n s were a lt e r a b le was one o f the main is s u e s i n the LTacComick c a s e . A fte r c o n s id e r in g the supremacy o f P arliam ent as i t a p p lie s i n Great B r it a in Lord Cooper went s t r a ig h t t o the l e g a l f o r c e i n the p r o v is io n s o f the T reaty th a t brought about t h e i r Union. He s a id t h a t ;— ”... the T reaty and the a s s o c ia t e d l e g i s l a t i o n , by which the P arliam en t o f Great B r it a in was brought in t o b e in g as the s u c c e s s o r to the sep a ra te P a rlia m en ts o f S cotla n d and England, c o n ta in some c la u s e s which e x p r e s s ly re se rv e t o the P arliam ent o f Great B r it a in powers o f subsequent m o d ific a t io n , and o th e r c la u s e s which n e it h e r c o n t a in no such power o r e m p h a tica lly e x clu d e subsequent a l t e r a t i o n by d e c la r a t io n s th a t the p r o v is io n s s h a l l be foundam ental and u n a lte ra b le i n a l l time com ing. We have read th a t judgment q u ite c a r e f u l l y but we have n ot been able t o see the sentence ap p ea rin g in qu otes a t the bottom o f page 11 o f the su bm ission s by D r. LIvun&i. In f a c t the E n g lis h c o u r t d id n o t make any o p in io n i n the manner c it e d by lea rn ed co u n s e l, in s te a d i t s a id t h i s s - " ... A ccep tin g i t t h a t there are p r o v is io n s in the T reaty o f Union and a s s o c ia t e d l e g i s l a t i o n which are ’ fundam ental law *, and assuming f o r the moment th a t som ething i s a lle g e d t o have been done - i t m a tters n o t whether w ith l e g i s l a t i v e a u t h o r it y o r n o t - i n b re a ch o f th a t fundamental law , the q u e stio n rem ains whether such a q u e s tio n i s determ inable as a ju s t i c i a b l e is s u e i n the C ourts o f e i t h e r S co tla n d o r England, i n the same fa s h io n as an is s u e o f c o n s t i t u t io n a l v i r e s would be co g n is a b le by the Supreme C ourts o f the United S ta te s o r South A fr ic a ' o r A u s tr a lia ... On th ese m atters I e x p re ss no v ie w • He e x p re sse d no v iew because c o u r ts i n England d e cla re d from lo n g ago th a t t h e i r r o le i s to e n fo r c e l e g i s l a t i o n a s th ey f in d i t , hence the L a tin Maxim: Lex A n^liae sin e P a rlia m en ts m utari non ■P o t e s t . T h is approach i s based on the D icesan t h e o r ie s o f the supremacy o f P a rlia m en t. The p o s i t i o n i n the U nited S ta te s , South A f r ic a , In dia, and here a t home i s d i f f e r e n t . Any l e g i s l a t i o n may be ch a lle n g e d i n c o u r ts o f law i n these c o u n t r ie s i f i t i s u n con sti t u t i o n a l. Y/hat comes out q u ite v i v i d l y from the B r it is h T reaty o f Union,u n lik e our A r t i c l e s o f Union, i s th a t the form er co n ta in ed p r o v is io n s w hich were d e c la r e d t o be fundam ental and u n a lt e r a b le . We do n o t have such c la u s e s i n our T reaty o f U nion. To th a t e i t e n t we f in d n oth in g i n the E n g lish case w hich can a s s i s t cou n se l i n h is argument th a t our A r t i c l e s o f Union are u n a lt e r a b le . In any c a s e , s in ce the A r t i c l e s o f Union a re , as conceded by b oth le a rn e d c o u n s e l, p a r t and p a r c e l o f the A cts o f Union, th ey may be amended o r a lt e r e d to meet new needs and ch a llen g es o f a « changing and f a s t growing s o c i e t y which th ey were in ten d ed to s e r v e . Thus, i n o rd e r to meet the needs o f a dynamic s o c i e t y such as o u rs , i t i s v i t a l th a t the A r t i c l e s o f Union be m o d ifie d from time t o time by the Union P arliam ent which took o v er the fu n c tio n s o f the L e g is la t u r e s o f Tanganyika and Zanzibar in the c o n te x t scene and s e t t in g th a t e x i s t s a t the tim e, and n o t when th ey were prom ulgated oth erw ise they w i l l cease t o be a b re a st o f the c o n s t i t u t io n a l developm ents w hich th e y h e ra ld e d . In f a c t t h i s i s what has come to be done in B r it a in where subsequent h is t o r y has r e v e a le d th a t p r o v is io n s th a t were d e cla re d t o be u n a lte r a b le have lo n g s in ce been a lt e r e d o r re p e a le d , f o r in s ta n c e the U n iv e r s it ie s (S c o tla n d ) A ct, 1853 and the I r i s h Church A ct, 1869, which have amended o r re p e a le d c la u s e s which had been d e c la r e d fundam ental and u n a lt e r a b le . \7e now come to the l a s t is s u e , and th a t i s the d o c tr in e o f fundam ental change o f circu m sta n ce . In t h i s b e h a lf Dr. Sengondo I.Ivungi p o se s the is s u e whether what lie c a l l s the u n ila t e r a l amendment o f the b a s ic terms o f the A r t i c l e s o f Union e n t i t l e s the two sta te p a r t ie s t o r e l y upon the d o c tr in e o f fundam ental change o f circu m sta n ce s. He argu es th a t th a t d o c tr in e p r o h ib it s s ta te p a r t i e s t o a t r e a t y from changing th a t t r e a t y i n a su b sta n tiv e o r fundam ental way w ith ou t the con sen t o f the o t h e r . That b rea ch o f t h is d o c tr in e d is ch a rg e s the o th e r p a rty from i t s t r e a t y o b l i g a t i o n s . In our case the p a r t ie s t o the T reaty o f Union are Tanganyika and Z a n zib a r. I t i s h is su b m ission , t h e r e fo r e , th a t the changes t o the A r t i c l e s o f Union co n ta in e d in the E leven th Amendment were n o t p r o p e r ly e f f e c t e d . He g iv e s two reason s f o r h is co n te n tio n s (a ) th a t the amendment was made by the Union P arliam ent which was n o t p r iv y t o the T reaty o f Union; b e in g a t h ir d p a r ty t o the T rea ty i t had no powers to change the A r t i c l e s o f Union w ith ou t a llo w in g .room f o r r e - n e g o t ia t io n between the c o n t r a c t in g p a r t ie s , namely, Tanzania Mainland and Z a n zib a r; and (b ) th a t the changes have cre a te d a s it u a t i o n o f c o n f l i c t between the Union Government and the R e v o lu tio n a ry Government o f Z a n zib a r. I t i s contended th a t toda te the q u e stio n whether the s tr u c tu r e o f the Union should be changed t o a llo w a f e d e r a l s tru c tu re s t i l l rem ains u n re so lv e d between Mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar and th a t the s it u a t io n w arrants the conven ing o f a S p e c ia l C o n s t it u t io n a l Court t o r e s o lv e t h is c o n f l i c t . I n the upshot i t i s subm itted th a t s in c e the Union between the two s t a t e s was f r e e l y e n te re d i n t o , the two p a r t ie s to i t should be g iv e n an o p p o rtu n ity t o s i t down to g e th e r and amend the T rea ty o f Union so th a t i t r e f l e c t s t h e ir b e s t i n t e r e s t s and a s p ir a t i o n s . I f t h is i s done u n i l a t e r a l l y by one p a r ty then the oth e r p a r ty can be d isch a rg e d from i t s o b l i g a t i o n under the t r e a t y . Thus i f changes t o the T rea ty o f Union s h a l l con tin u e to b e , as he sa y s, s t r u g g le d in t o the C o n s t it u t io n i n circu m v e n tio n o f p roce d u re s l a i d down by law the e x is t e n c e o f the U nited R e p u b lic s h a ll be endangered. We a r e , t h e r e fo r e , c a l l e d upon t o v a l i a n t l y champion the s tr u g g le t o d efen d our c o n s t i t u t io n a l o rd e r. We w i l l b e g in t o c o n s id e r t h is is s u e from the t a i l . We are b e in g urged t o champion the stru g g le t o defend our c o n s t i t u t io n a l o rd e r, 7/e need n ot p a r t ic ip a t e i n any s tru g g le i n ord er /bo defend our c o n s t i t u t io n a l o r d e r . Our oath o f o f f i c e d ic ta te s th a t i t i s our duty t o defend the C o n s t it u t io n , f o r the c o u r ts are i t s gu a rd ia n . We w i l l do so t o the b e s t o f our e n e r g ie s even w ith ou t any e x t e r n a l u r g in g . S econ dly, i t i s w h o lly erro n e o u s t o argue th a t the amendment was made u n i l a t e r a l l y b y one p a r ty t o the T re a ty , The Union P arliam ent which p assed the l e g i s l a t i o n d oes n ot b elon g t o Tanganyika; i t b e lo n g s to the Union composed o f Members from b o th p a r ts o f the Union. I t s d e c is io n s cannot be u n i l a t e r a l . Now, as reg a rd s the secon d s u b -is s u e , the p e t i t i o n e r s have the grave and the un enviable task o f p ro v in g what th e y a l l e g e . Whether o r n o t th ere i s a c o n f l i c t between the Union G rove rnment and the Za n zib a r R e v o lu tio n a ry Government i s a q u e stio n o f f a c t th a t r e q u ir e s p r o o f by e v id e n c e . A ll th a t th ere i s b e fo r e us are statem en ts from the Bar. Such statem ents cannot stand i n f o r p ro b a tiv e e v id e n c e . P la in ly , as A r t ic le 126 (1 ) shows, the s o le fu n c t io n o f the S p e c ia l C o n s t it u t io n a l Court o f the U nited R e p u b lie :- "... i s to hear and g iv e a c o n c i l i a t o r y d e c is io n o v e r a m atter r e f e r r e d t o i t co n ce rn in g the in t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h is C o n s t it u t io n where such in t e r p r e t a t i o n o r i t s a p p lic a t io n i s i n d isp u te between the Government o f the U nited R e p u b lic and the R e v o lu tio n a ry Government o f Z a n z ib a r .” Thus in o rd e r t o convene the S p e c ia l C o n s t it u t io n a l Court the fo llo w in g circu m sta n ces must be shown to e x i s t (a ) th a t a m atter d o e s e x i s t con cern in g the in t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the C o n s t it u t io n ; and (b ) th a t such in t e r p r e t a t i o n o r i t s a p p lic a t io n i s in d isp u te between the Union Government and the ‘ R e v o lu tio n a ry Government o f Z a n zib a r. I t fo llo w s th a t one o f the two Governments must be a g g rie v e d by the in t e r p r e t a t io n o r a p p lic a t io n o f any o f the p r o v is io n s o f the C o n s t it u t io n . There i s no m a te r ia l b e fo r e us which shows th a t e it h e r the R e v o lu tio n a ry Government o f Zanzibar o r the Union Government has a m atter t o r e f e r to the S p e c ia l C o n s t it u t io n a l Court as by law p r o v id e d . We c o n s id e r m a tters r e l a t in g t o the need f o r changes i n the C o n s t it u t io n as b ein g o u tsid e the ambit o f A r t i c le 1 2 6 (1 ) u n le ss such a l t e r a t i o n s have brought about a c o n te n tio u s in t e r p r e t a t i o n o r a p p lic a t io n o f the C o n stitu tio n .* M atters such as the need t o r e -n e g o t ia t e the T rea ty o f Union are p u r e ly o f a p o l i t i c a l nature which do not con cern the c o u r t s .' S im ila r c o n s id e r a t io n s would a p p ly t o s it u a t io n s which may b rin g about the amendment o f any p r o v is io n in the C o n s t it u t io n . In deed , whether the s tr a c tu r e o f the Union should be changed o r n o t i s another m atter th a t should be pursued as a p o l i t i c a l agendum. We are o f the stro n g view th a t an is s u e o f g r e a t im portance has been r a is e d by le a rn e d co u n se l re g a rd in g th e a lle g e d need f o r r e - n e g o t i a t i o n o f the terms o f the T reaty o f Union. Can r e a l l y the Union Government and the R e v o lu tio n a ry Government o f Za n zib a r n e g o tia te and e n t e r in t o a t r e a t y o f any k in d ? I n o th e r w ords, do th ey , i n d iv id u a l ly , have c a p a c it y t o do s o ? What, r e a l l y , i s a t r e a t y as known i n in t e r n a t io n a l law? V/e understand a t r e a t y t o be a most fundam ental law o f n a t io n s . T r a d it io n a lly and e s s e n t i a l l y a t r e a t y i s an agreement between s t a t e s or s o v e r e ig n s b in d in g i n v ir t u e o f •pacta s u r t servanda. Since a t r e a t y i s n o t o n ly a law but a ls o a c o n t r a c t between two o r more s o v e re ig n n a tio n s , i t f o llo w s th a t Tanzania Mainland and Zanzibar do n o t have c a p a c ity t o c o n t r a c t . They b e lo n g t o one n a t io n , the United R ep u blic o f Tanzania. The U nited R e p u b lic cannot n e g o tia te a t r e a t y alone and unto i t s e l f . 1 The c o n s titu e n t s t a t e s o f Tanganyika, now Tanzania Mainland, and Zanzibar were e x tin g u is h e d as n a tio n s when they merged in t o the United R e p u b lic i n terms o f the T reaty o f Union th a t was r a t i f i e d by the a s s o c ia t e l e g i s l a t i o n . They, t h e r e f o r e , cannot n e g o t ia te a t r e a t y n or can th ey n e g o t ia te t o amend the T rea ty o f Union. The T rea ty o f Union as co n ta in e d in the A r t i c l e s o f Union now form s p a r t o f the A cts o f Union. The A cts o f Union are them selves in c lu d e d in L is t One o f the Second Schedule to the C o n s t it u t io n . I t i s our v ie w , and we have s a id so e a r l i e r on i n t h is r u lin g ^ t h a t o n ly the Union P arliam ent has the v i r e s t o amend o r m odify them. A c c o r d in g ly the Vienna C onvention on the Law o f T r e a t ie s i s in a p p l ic a b l e .' These o b s e r v a tio n s take care o f the f i r s t s u b -is s u e as w e ll. F i n a ll y , there i s the d o c t r in e o f fundam ental change o f circu m sta n ce s. T his d o c t r in e i s much w id er than le a rn e d co u n se l f o r the p e t i t i o n e r s has put forw ard to u s . I t in c lu d e s te rm in a tio n o f a t r e a t y by o p e ra tio n o f law , such as a supervenin g i m p o s s i b i l i t y have o f perform ance known •the m u n icipa l law o f c o n t r a c t which w ill^ the e f f e c t o f f r u s t r a t in g the e x e c u tio n o f the terms o f the t r e a t y . A good example would be the m erger o f two s o v e re ig n n a tio n s i n t o one s o v e r e ig n s ta te in which case the em erging s ta te w ill* take over t r e a t y o b lig a t i o n s o f i t s c o n s titu e n t s t a t e s . T his must be so because the c o n s titu e n t s ta te S lo s e t h e ir l e g a l p e r s o n a l it y when th ey m erge. I t f o llo w s th a t Tanganyika and Zanzibar have lo n g s in c e l o s t t h e ir l e g a l p e r s o n a lity ^ I t may be c o r r e c t t o say th a t the u n i l a t e r a l brea ch o f a tr e a ty has as one o f it s consequences to absolve tho party not in breach of a ll obligations under tho treaty. True, as Jennings argues in his book The Lair and The Constitution. (5th Edition, 1959) at pa^e 170, the 3 r itis h Acts o f Union were passed to r a tify the Treaties o f Union and that tho amendments to the treaties wore carried out in accordance with the mp-Hm nebus s ic stantibus, that is , i t is a t a c it condition attaching to a ll trea ties thnt they shall coase to be obligatory soon as the stnte o f fa c ts and conditions upon which they were founded has substantially changed* tfe have given serious consideration to th is contention. We are s a tis fie d , howeven,. that although the Eleventh Amendment has introduced changes in tho A rticles o f Union, those changes are founded on the lawful and legitim ate exercise ©f le g is la tiv e power by Parliament. It follows that no breach of the Treaty of Union has been established. Thus the position here is different from Britain. So whereas the Articles of Union form the Treaty of Union and consequently part and paroel of oux constitutional law, and even though they constitute the basic norm reflecting the birth of a new grund-norm for our nation, unlike the position in Britain, they are,' as we have already held, justiciable as part of the Acts of Union* It follows, therefore, that the doctrine of fundamental change of circumstances cannot apply in the manner it is being argued here. Accordingly this issue would also fail. Upon tho foregoing considerations the p etition is dismissed with costs.