Tanzania Case Law

legal and human rights centre and another v attorney general of the united republic of tanzania reference no192019 2024 eacj 5 27 march 2024

Court

EACJ

The Court found that the impugned Act passed the three-part test: the limitations were prescribed by law and clear, the objectives were pressing and substantial, and the measures were proportionate to the objectives. The Applicants failed to prove that the Act violated the Treaty or Protocol. Therefore, the challenged provisions do not contravene the cited Treaty or Protocol articles.

Source excerpt

• Validity of national legislation
• Public participation
• Rule of law
• Good governance
• Human rights
• Freedom of association

Read case analysis

attorney general of the united republic of tanzania v mbowe and others appeal 5 of 2022 2023 eacj 8 26 may 2023

Court

EACJ

The EACJ Appellate Division dismissed Tanzania’s appeal, holding the Trial Court did not err in finding parts of the Political Parties Amendment Act inconsistent with the Treaty.

• Treaty interpretation
• Political parties regulation
• Freedom of association
• Good governance
• Burden of proof
• Proportionality test

Read case analysis

mtikila vs attorney general 2006 tzhc 5 5 may 2006

Court

TZHC

The amendments to Articles 21(1), 39(1)(c), and 67(1)(b) of the Constitution, introduced by Act No. 34 of 1994, unreasonably and unnecessarily restrict the fundamental right of Tanzanian citizens to participate in government by requiring political party membership for presidential and parliamentary candidacy. These restrictions violate Articles 20(4) and 21(1) of the Constitution, fail the proportionality test, and are not justified by public interest or international law. The amendments are therefore unconstitutional and void.

Source excerpt

• Right to political participation
• Independent candidacy
• Constitutional amendments
• Proportionality test
• International human rights instruments

Read case analysis

christopher mtikila vs attorney general 2006 tzhc 126 5 may 2006

Court

TZHC

The amendments to Articles 21(1), 39(1)(c), and 67(1)(b) of the Constitution, introduced by Act No. 34 of 1994, which restrict candidacy for president and member of parliament to members of political parties only, are unconstitutional as they violate the fundamental rights to freedom of association and participation in government under Articles 20(4) and 21(1). The state failed to justify the necessity and proportionality of these restrictions, and the amendments also contravene international human rights instruments to which Tanzania is a party.

Source excerpt

• Right to political participation
• Freedom of association
• Constitutional amendments
• Proportionality test
• International human rights instruments

Read case analysis

legal and human rights centre lhrc others vs attorney general 3 mihayo j 2006 tzhc 3 24 april 2006

Court

TZHC

Sections 98(2) and 98(3) of the Electoral Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act 4/2000 ('takrima' provisions) are unconstitutional as they are discriminatory, unnecessary, and violate Articles 13(1), 13(2), and 21(1) and (2) of the Constitution. The petitioners have locus standi, and the petition discloses a cause of action.

Source excerpt

• Locus standi
• Discrimination
• Constitutionality of statutes
• Election offences
• Proportionality test

Read case analysis

in re constitution of the united republic of tanzania 1977 2006 tzhc 4 24 april 2006

Court

TZHC

Sections 119(2) and 119(3) of the National Elections Act (the 'takrima' provisions) are unconstitutional as they are discriminatory in effect, advantage high-income candidates, undermine equality before the law and the right to free and fair elections, and fail the proportionality test. The petitioners, as legal persons acting in public interest, have locus standi. The petition discloses a cause of action as it challenges the constitutionality of the provisions themselves.

Source excerpt

• Equality before the law
• Discrimination
• Right to participate in governance
• Locus standi
• Proportionality test
• Corrupt practices in elections

Read case analysis

NA TZHC Dar es Salaam4

Court

TZHC

Sections 119(2) and 119(3) of the National Elections Act (the 'takrima' provisions) are unconstitutional as they are discriminatory in effect, favoring high-income candidates and creating unequal treatment among citizens, thereby violating Articles 13(1), 13(2), 21(1), and 21(2) of the Constitution. The provisions fail the proportionality test, are unnecessary, and legalize acts that undermine free and fair elections. The petitioners have locus standi as public interest organizations.

Source excerpt

• Equality before the law
• Discrimination
• Right to participate in governance
• Free and fair elections
• Public interest litigation
• Proportionality test

Read case analysis

NA TZHC Dar es Salaam1

Court

TZHC

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.

Source excerpt

• Right to contest elections
• Private candidacy
• Constitutional amendments
• Proportionality test
• International human rights instruments

Read case analysis