THE CYBER CRIMES ACT, 2015 - TANZANIA

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/MAX.UAGES-DDAA743D6/My%20Documents/Downloads/CYBERCRIMES%20ACT%202015.pdf

Tangazo la Sheria kufutwa kwa Matokea Uchaguzi Mkuu Zanzibar

Saying “KAFFIR” is a punishable offence in South Africa

Extracts from legal and court papers below:

REPORTABLE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(EASTERN CAPE, GRAHAMSTOWN)

CASE NO: CA 165/2008
In the matter between
MIETA M RYAN Appellant

VS
RODWIN PETRUS Respondent
JUDGMENT
PICKERING J:
I turn then to consider the words uttered by defendant. It will be convenient to commence with the use of the highly offensive word “kaffir”.
As far back as 1976 James JP in Ciliza v Minister of Police and Another 1976 (4) SA 243 (N), after having referred to various dictionary definitions of the word, stated at 247H:
“It follows that in my opinion one of the recognised meanings which the word ‘Kaffir’ now bears in South Africa is that such a person is uncivilised, uncouth and coarse and that if one calls a person a ‘Kaffir’ this will in certain circumstances constitute an iniuria.”
In that matter a white policeman had used the word in addressing the plaintiff, who was a black man. Plaintiff was awarded the sum of R150,00 as damages.
In Mbatha v Van Staden 1982 (2) SA 260 (N) the plaintiff, a black man, sued the defendant, a white man, for iniuria after the defendant had repeatedly called him a “kaffir” and assaulted him. At 262 H – 263A Didcott J stated as follows:
“The tirade’s worst feature was the use of the epithet ‘kaffer’. Such alone can amount today to an actionable wrong, according to the decision of the Full Bench here in Ciliza v Minister of Police and Another 1976 (4) SA 243 (N). Everything depends, of course, on the context in which the word is uttered. Settings which make it innocuous can no doubt be imagined. Ordinarily, however, that is not the case when, in South Africa nowadays, a Black man or woman is called a ‘kaffer’ by somebody of another race. Then, as a rule, the term is a derogatory and contemptuous one. With much the same ring as the word ‘nigger’ in the United States, it disparages the Black race and the person concerned as a member of that race. It is deeply offensive to blacks. Just about everyone knows that by now. The intention to offend can therefore be taken for granted, on most occasions at any rate.”
The plaintiff was awarded the sum of R2 000,00 as damages.

Citizenship Law in Africa A Comparative Study

Citizenship Law in Africa

A Comparative Study

By Bronwen Manby

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/women/docs/OtherEntities/OSJI%20CitizenshipAfricaStudy.pdf

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/women/docs/OtherEntities/OSJI%20CitizenshipAfricaStudy.pdf

NUMERICAL INDEX TO PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION of TANZANIA RV.2002

Chapter 1
The Interpretation of Laws Act
Chapter 2
Katiba Ya Jamhuri Ya Muungano Wa Tanzania, Ya Mwaka
Chapter 3
The Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act
Chapter 4
The Laws Revision Act
Chapter 5
The Government Proceedings Act
Chapter 6
The Evidence Act
Chapter 7
The Judgements Extension Act
Chapter 8
The Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgements Act
Chapter 9
The Presidential Affairs Act
Chapter 10
The National Emblems Act
Chapter 11
The Magistrates' Courts Act
Chapter 12
The Notaries Public and Commissioners for Oaths Act
Chapter 13
The Children and Young Persons Act
Chapter 14
The Hire Purchase Act
Chapter 15
The Arbitration Act

TANZANIA PENAL CODE CHAPTER 16 OF THE LAWS

TANZANIA

PENAL CODE

 CHAPTER 16 OF THE LAWS (REVISED)

 (PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION)

[Issued Under Cap. 1, s. 18]

1981

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT

http://www.un.org/depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TZA_penal_code.pdf

United Republic of Tanzania (25 texts)

Constitution / Basic Law (Date of current version)

• The Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977 (2005)
• The Constitution of Zanzibar (2002)
• Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar Act, 1964 (1964)

Main IP Laws: enacted by the Legislature (Date of current version)

• The Zanzibar Industrial Property Act No. 4 of 2008 (2008)
• The Zanzibar Copyright Act, 2003 (2003)
• The Protection of New Plant Varieties (Plant Breeders' Rights) Act, 2002 (2002)
• The Traditional and Alternative Medicine Act No. 23 of 2002 (2002)
• Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 1999 (1999)
• The Patents (Registration) Act (1995)
• The Trade and Service Marks Act, 1986 (1986)
• Merchandise Marks Act, 1963 (No. 20 of 1963) (1963)

IP-related Laws: enacted by the Legislature (Date of current version)

• Business Activities Registration Act, 2007 (2007)
• The Universities Act, 2005 (2005)
• The Income Tax Act 2004 (2004)
• The Zanzibar Flag Act No. 12 of 2004 (2004)
• The Fair Competition Act (2003)
• The Companies Act, 2002 (2002)
• The Broadcasting Services Act, 1993 (1993)
• Business Names (Registration) Act (1991)
• National Flag and Coat of Arms Act, 1971 (1971)
• The Arbitration Act (1971)
• The Civil Procedure Code, 1966 (1966)

Source: http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/profile.jsp?code=tz

THE DEATH PENALTY IN TANZANIA: LAW AND PRACTICE

LEONARD P. SHAIDI
∗
I. INTRODUCTION 
The death penalty where it is practised has been reserved for the most serious crimes.  The list of capital offences has been shrinking in different societies with the passage of time, although the list is not identical 
even within African countries.  

Similarly, the list of abolitionist states has grown steadily from a handful of abolitionist states in 1940s to approximately half the countries of the world de facto or de jure rejecting the death penalty.  Even the countries which retain the death penalty are under increasing international pressure to abolish it.  The immediate focus is on narrowing as much as possible, offences which carry the death penalty, particularly to limit it to murder only.  In inter-state relations sometimes extradition may be refused where a fugitive may be exposed to the application of the death penalty.  The death penalty is therefore, regarded as a punishment of the past, not the future.   

This penalty has received ideological justification from the main religions, in our case Christianity and Islam.  Many believers would not wish to question anything which they consider to have been sanctioned by their religion as taught by their religious leaders.  

In penological terms, capital punishment is a reflection of retributive justice, embodying the ancient maxim of ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.’ It is based on vengeance channelling public outrage into a legalized form of punishment.  It is argued by its proponents that, in its absence, outraged people may be forced to seek vengeance through mob justice or individualized forms of revenge.   These are, however, mere impressions not supported by any data.  

II. LAW AND PRACTICE 
In Tanzania there are two offences which carry the death penalty:  murder and treason. 

Under section 197 of the Penal Code (Chapter 16), ‘any person convicted of murder shall be sentenced to death.’  This is a mandatory requirement which leaves the court with no option but to pass the death sentence upon conviction of a person.  However, the same section in its proviso exempts pregnant women.  

Instead they are to be sentenced to imprisonment for life if convicted of murder.  Treason, under sections 39 and 40 also carries the death penalty, but ‘misprision of treason’ (section 41) is punishable with life imprisonment.  
Section 26 of the Penal Code also exempts persons under eighteen years of age from the death penalty.  

Such juveniles are to be detained ‘during the President’s pleasure…in such place and under such conditions as the Minister for Legal Affairs may direct.’ 
The Tanzania High Court and Court of Appeal have construed capital punishment statutes strictly.  In the case of treason, for example no person has been sentenced to die under the provisions which carry the death 
                                                
∗
 Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Dar Es Salaam 2
penalty since the country became independent in 1961.   Under the offence of treason, the phrase used in the sentence provision is ‘shall be liable on conviction to suffer death.’  The courts have interpreted this as 
merely setting the upper limit, but not mandatory.  As for murder, the phrase used is ‘shall be sentenced to death’, and this is taken as mandatory. 

However in the case of murder, most prosecutions for this offence 
end up with the verdict of manslaughter, which does not carry the death penalty.  Murder convictions are, therefore, recorded in cases where there is overwhelming evidence to establish the offence, and the law 
provides that where any person is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that he shall suffer death by hanging.  

On the question of age, the law provides that the death penalty should not be pronounced against a person under 18 years of age. There are conflicting decisions as to whether this age limit refers to the time of commission of the offence or during sentencing.  In the case of  R.v. Lubasha Maderenya and Tegai Lebasha
1
, the High Court (Lugakingira, J.) did not impose a death penalty on one of the accused because he 
was below 18 years at the time of commission of the murder.  During the hearing of the Appeal, the Court 
of Appeal reversed this decision. 
2
  
III. CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS 

Legitimizing Dispossession: The Tanzanian High Court's Decision on the Eviction of Maasai Pastoralists from Mkomazi Game Reserve

Author: 

TengaW. Ringo

CSQ Issue: 

22.4 (Winter 1998) Uprooted: Dispossession in Africa

Ownership and security of land is central to the cultural survival of ethnic minorities in countries such as Tanzania. For the past decade, the struggle for the land rights of cultural minorities in Tanzania has, amongst many fronts, focused on obtaining legal rights from courts of law. The central aim of these efforts is to obtain "a community-based test case to establish the deemed Right of Occupancy," that is the legal embodiment of the common title to land for a "native community," as defined by Tanzania Land Law. The existing wisdom holds that once a precedent is established on the nature of the common title over, say rangelands, it will be much easier for communities, at least legally, to stop the continual encroachment on their extensive rangelands under the pretext that such land is terra nullius (no one's lands) or is underutilized.

True enough, precedents have been established during the years in a variety of Court cases on land, but whether these have enhanced the struggles of these communities remains doubtful.

Established Precedents over Customary Title to Land

The Tanzanian courts today recognize the equal status of the Deemed Right of Occupancy, or Customary Title vis-à-vis the Granted Right of Occupancy As a consequence of this recognition, the Customary Title to land may not be extinguished without following the provisions of the law that allow the state to acquire landed private property, (e.g. the Land Acquisition Act, 1967). Statutes that extinguish Customary Titles without adhering to constitutional protections are therefore null and void; also the mere administrative extinction of customary titles by using administrative mechanisms (e.g. declaration of planning areas), cannot effectively extinguish such titles in law.

Furthermore, the Tanzanian Courts recognize the native community's title to the commons (e.g. pasture land), upon proof of the existence of customary law within that community that recognizes ownership of the commons. Following this, the Courts today appear to have refused to recognize statutory corporate bodies, such as Village Councils, as customary holders of the collective Deemed Right of Occupancy over the commons. Where customary holders need to lodge a matter in Court relating to the particular commons, either a representative suit must be filed listing all the possible beneficiaries or all the beneficiaries must appear as plaintiffs. In matters related to damages, each plaintiff must prove the extent of damage. Time limitation is extremely important as the claim would be time barred in three years from the time the cause of action arose. And on questions regarding the social and cultural profile of communities, Courts are willing to receive experts' evidence from anthropologists, ethnologists, sociologists etc., provided it includes detailed ancestry, genealogies, names of landscapes, geographical marks, ancient paths and roads, common resources and their maintenance, cultural systems and artifacts, grave sites, sacred places, traditional property systems and resources, economic activities, nomadic cycles, etc.

Tanzania: Court of Appeal Decisions

Tanzania: Court of Appeal

Database last updated: 16 August 2012 Most recent decision: 22 December 2011 Number of decisions: 260 Decisions beginning with ... 0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Decisions for the years ... 1983 1991 1994 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2011 This database contains decisions of the Tanzanian Court of Appeal

Administrative Tribunals In Tanzania

(CTL CLASS – 11^TH and 12^th MAY 2011)

  © JABA SHADRACK, Department of Public Law, School of Law (Formerly, Faculty of law) at the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Lecture outline:

1. Introduction to Adjudicative/Judicial Powers in Tanzania
2. Definition of Administrative Tribunals
3. Other names for/of Administrative Tribunals
4. Types and Examples of Administrative Tribunals in Tanzania
5. Legal basis of Administrative Tribunals in Tanzania
6. Ordinary Courts v/s Administrative Tribunals
7. Inherent features of Administrative Tribunals
8. Why Administrative Tribunals? (Advantages)
9. Criticism of Administrative Tribunals (Disadvantages)

Introduction to Judicial Powers in Tanzania

Traditionally, the duty of determining disputes between individuals in the society is viewed as an exclusive domain of the ordinary courts of law. The conception of a court as a central adjudicative body found acceptance in most of the classical scholars' writings such as Montesquieu (separation of powers) and contemporary jurists such as Dicey (rule of law). TheConstitution of Tanzania, 1977 (RE: 2005) under Article 4(1)(2) vests judicial powers in the Judiciary of the United Republic and the Judiciary of the Revolutionary government of Zanzibar. In the same vein, The Constitution of Zanzibar, 1984 (RE: 2006) under Article 5A(2) confers judicial authority to the Courts of law. Article 107A(1) of the Constitution of Tanzania(supra) cements and reiterate the above position by providing that;

The Judiciary shall be the authority with final decision in dispensation of justice in the United Republic of Tanzania.

Though the Constitution of Tanzania (supra) is very clear on which organ should exercise judicial powers, in reality many judicial functions have come to be performed by the executive, e.g. imposition of fines, levy of penalty, confiscation of goods, cancellation of licences and etc. 

Summary:

Under the Constitution of Tanzania and Zanzibar respectively, the Courts of law have exclusive jurisdiction in the adjudicative system of the country. 

  Definition of Administrative Tribunals

There is no universally accepted definition of the term Administrative Tribunals or simply 'tribunal' as per professor Jain. However, jurists, academicians, and administrators (politicians) have made several attempts to explain the same. Now, let us look at some of the definitions;

• Thakker (Takwani, 1998)
  

Are bodies established to decide various quasi-judicial issues in place of ordinary courts.

• Supreme Court of India, 1954.

Are adjudicative bodies constituted, manned and operated by the executive. 

• L.B. Curzon, Dictionary of Law, 6^th Ed., 2002 (Pearson/Longman).

Are bodies outside the hierarchy of the courts with administrative or judicial functions.

An Introduction to Public Law Of Tanzania

© JABA SHADRACK, Department of Public Law, School of Law (Formerly, Faculty of law) at the University of Dar es Salaam.  (CTL CLASS – OCTOBER 27, 2011)

  

Lecture outline:

1.1 Meaning of law

1.2. Role and functions of law

1.3. Sources of law in Tanzania

1.4. Classification of law

1.5 References

1.1 MEANING OF LAW

To religious people, the term law is closely associated with God's commands or directives or rules contained in Holy Books, thus 'law of nature' (i.e. law proclaimed my a supernatural beings, e.g. ancestors, spirits, goddess and etc). But, to social scientists, lawyers, politicians and economists, the term 'law' relates with the command of the sovereign (state) and its various institutions, thus 'law of science' (i.e. peoples' will or agreed system and standards of conduct). However, the area of concern in this brief outline is the 'law of science'.

The following are some attempts to define the term 'law':-

(a) Oxford Dictionary of law, 7th Ed., 2009 (p. 316).

Define the term 'law' as the enforceable body of rules that govern the society.

(b) Shivji, 2004, et. al., p. 3.

Is an obligatory rules of conduct imposed or recognised and enforced by the state.

(c) Salwan and Narang (2008) Academic's legal dictionary. 18th Ed., p. 201.

The Arms and Ammunition Act - Law Reform Commission of Tanzania

[PDF] 

The Arms and Ammunition Act - Law Reform Commission of Tanzania

www.lrct.go.tz/download/updated-acts-tanzania/ARMS.pdf

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
(1) This Act shall apply to Tanzania Zanzibar as well as to ... (b) every air gun and every other kind of gun from which any shot, ...... 162 of the Laws of Zanzibar.] ...

TANZANIA PENAL CODE CHAPTER 16 OF THE LAWS (REVISED) (PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION)

TANZANIA

PENAL CODE

            CHAPTER 16 OF THE LAWS (REVISED)

        (PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION)

[Issued Under Cap. 1, s. 18]

1981

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT PRINTER,

DARES SALAAM

Here 
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TZA_penal_code.pdf

INHERITANCE LAW IN TANZANIA: THE IMPOVERISHMENT OF WIDOWS AND DAUGHTERS

TAMAR EZER*
I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 601
II. INHERITANCE LAW IN TANZANIA SENTENCES WOMEN TO
DEPENDENCE, POVERTY, AND SUBORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 606
A. TANZANIA’S CHOICE OF LAW RULES FUNNEL THE MAJORITY
OF ITS CITIZENS INTO DISCRIMINATORY INHERITANCE SCHEMES,
DEPRIVING WOMEN OF PROPERTY SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF
THEIR GENDER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 606
B. CUSTOMARY LAW DENIES WIDOWS INHERITANCE AND LIMITS
DAUGHTERS TO THE SMALLEST SHARE WITH ATTACHED
RESTRICTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609
1. Instead of Recognizing Widows’ Right to Inherit
Matrimonial Property, Customary Law Treats Them as
Minors Dependent on the Care of Others and as Property
to be Inherited by Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609
2. Customary Law Limits and Restricts Daughters’
Inheritance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612
3. Inheritance by Other Family Members Follows a Gender
Discriminatory Scheme, Generally Passing through
Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613
4. The Limited Customary Rights Granted Women Are
Even More Uncertain in Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613
C. UNDER ISLAMIC LAW, WOMEN CAN INHERIT ONLY HALF AS
MUCH AS MEN, PERPETUATING WOMEN’S DEPENDENCE. . . . . . 615
* This article is a result of a collaboration between Georgetown’s International Women’s Human
Rights Clinic (“Clinic”) and Tanzania’s Women’s Legal Aid Centre (WLAC). The initial report and
proposed statutes were drafted by Spring 2002 students—Nickolas Galli, Susan Gualtier, Kristine Pirnia,
and Sukyong Suh—and later edited by Christine Davis, then an Associate at Howrey LLP. The team
worked under the primary supervision of Susan Deller Ross (the Director of the Clinic), along with
supervision by Esther Kisaakye (a Visiting Scholar at Georgetown University and Lecturer of Law at
Makerere University in Uganda), and input from Monica Mhoja (the then Director of WLAC) and other
WLAC attorneys, Rehema Kerefu-Sameji, Jane Magigita, Alex Mgongolwa, and Martin Mdoe. The
Spring 2002 fact-finding team also consisted of the following WLAC attorneys: Magdalena Acquilin,
Safina Hassan, and Scholastica Jullu. This project was made possible through the generous support of
USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development). This article builds on the original Spring 2002
report, but it is a rewritten and updated version prepared by Clinic Attorney-Fellow Tamar Ezer.
Acknowledgements: Christine Davis was invaluable in providing information on the 2002 fact-
finding. I would also like to thank my later students who worked on other Tanzania projects and on
inheritance issues in Tanzania, Uganda, and Nigeria, whose subsequent interviews and thoughts helped
enrich and inform my writing. Finally, a special thanks to Daniel McLaughlin and Uriel Mendieta, whose
hard work and insights helped me with this article.

More here http://winafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Inheritance-Law-in-Tanzania1.pdf

CHAPTER 213 THE BUSINESS NAMES (REGISTRATION) ACT [PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION] ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

CHAPTER 213
THE BUSINESS NAMES (REGISTRATION) ACT
[PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION]
ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
Section
Title
1. Short title.
2. Interpretation.
3. Registrar and deputies.
4. Firms and persons to be registered.
5. Registration by nominee, etc.
6. Manner and particulars of registration.
7. Statement to be signed by persons registering.
8. Time for registration.
9. Restriction on registration of certain business names.
10. Registration not to authorise use.
11. Registration of changes in firm.
12. Rectification of the register in certain cases.
13. Penalty for default in registration.
14. Penalty for carrying on business under unauthorised name.
15. Disability of persons in default.
16. Penalty for false statements.
17. Duty to furnish particulars to the Registrar.
18. Registrar to file statement and issue certificate of registration.
19. Index to be kept.
20. Removal of names from register.
21. Inspection of statements registered.
22. Power of Minister to make rules.
23. Publication of true names, etc.
24. Offences by corporations.
SCHEDULE
CHAPTER 213
THE BUSINESS NAMES (REGISTRATION) ACT
An Act to provide for the registration of business names.
[21st February, 1930]
Ords. Nos.
1 of 1930
37 of 1955
Acts Nos.
4 of 1975
13 of 1991
1. Short title
This Act may be cited as the Business Names (Registration) Act.
2. Interpretation In this Act unless the context otherwise requires–
"business" includes profession;
"business name" means the name or style under which any business is carried
on, whether in partnership or otherwise;
"firm" means an unincorporate body of two or more individuals, or one or more
individuals and one or more corporations, or two or more corporations, who have
entered into partnership with one another with a view to carry on business for profit;
"foreign firm" means any firm, individual or corporation whose principal place of business is not situated within Tanzania;

REVEREND CHRISTOPHER R. MTIKILA V THE UNITED REPUBLUC OF TANZANIA APPLICATION NO. 011/2011

CASE NOTE
REVEREND CHRISTOPHER R. MTIKILA V THE UNITED REPUBLUC OF TANZANIA
APPLICATION  NO. 011/2011
A. THE PARTIES
1. The Applicant, Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila, is a citizen of the United
Republic of Tanzania. He is represented by Counsels, Setondji Adjovi, Mary R.
Birdi, Deogratias M. Njau and Megan R. Thompson, all of  Etudes Vihode of
Benin,  Charles Adeogun-Phillips of Charles Anthony LLP (Nigeria) and Francis
Dako of Cabinet Francis Dako, Benin.
2. The Respondent is the United Republic of Tanzania and is a State Party to the
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Charter) having ratified it
on 18 February 1984 and in respect of which it entered into force on 21 October
1986. The Respondent is a State Party to the Protocol to the African Charter on
Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human
and Peoples’ Rights (Protocol Establishing the Court)  which it ratified on 6
February 2006. The applicant alleges that the Respondent  has  deposited the
Declaration required under Article 34(6) of the Protocol Establishing the Court
allowing individuals and NGOs with Observer Status before the Commission to
directly access the Court. Further, the Respondent is also a State Party to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) since 11 June 1976.
3. The Respondent is represented by:

Application No. 009/2011 Tanganyika Law Society & Legal and Human Rights Centre v. The United Republic of Tanzania

Application No. 009/2011
Tanganyika Law Society & Legal and Human Rights Centre
v. The United Republic of Tanzania
Summary of facts
1. The Applicants submit that the Respondent State is in violation of Article 2 and
13(1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and articles 3 and
25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a violation
that was institutionalized in 1992, at the onset of multiparty politics in the country.
2. According to the Applicants, in 1992, the National Assembly passed the Eighth
Amendment to the Constitution and prescribed a requirement for membership to
and sponsorship by a political party for all persons running  for  Presidential,
Parliamentary and Local Government elections. They submit further that in 1993,
a certain Reverend Mtikila challenged the 8
th
constitutional amendment, and on
16
th
October 1994, the Respondent tabled a bill, the 11
th
Constitutional

Application No. 009/2011 Tanganyika Law Society & Legal and Human Rights Centre v. The United Republic of Tanzania

Application No. 009/2011
Tanganyika Law Society & Legal and Human Rights Centre
v. The United Republic of Tanzania
Summary of facts
1. The Applicants submit that the Respondent State is in violation of Article 2 and
13(1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and articles 3 and
25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a violation
that was institutionalized in 1992, at the onset of multiparty politics in the country.
2. According to the Applicants, in 1992, the National Assembly passed the Eighth
Amendment to the Constitution and prescribed a requirement for membership to
and sponsorship by a political party for all persons running  for  Presidential,
Parliamentary and Local Government elections. They submit further that in 1993,
a certain Reverend Mtikila challenged the 8
th
constitutional amendment, and on
16
th
October 1994, the Respondent tabled a bill, the 11
th
Constitutional
Amendment, seeking to nullify the right of independent candidates to contest
Presidential, Parliamentary and Local Government elections.
3. According to the Applicants, on 24 October 1994, the High Court found in favour
of Reverend Mtikila, and declared that it was lawful for independent candidates to
contest elections. On 2 December 1994, the National Assembly passed the
Eleventh Constitutional Amendment, whose effect was to the position of the 8
th
amendment, thus reversing the High Court decision of 24 October 1994.
4. In 2005, Reverend Mtikila again challenged the Eleventh Amendment,  and in
May 2006, the High Court again ruled in his favour, stating that the impugned
amendments were violative of the democratic values and principles enshrined in
the Constitution. 5. In 2009, the Respondent appealed the decision of the High Court to the Court of
Appeal, (the highest Court in the country), and in June 2010, the Court of Appeal,
reversed the decision of the High Court.
6. The Applicants note that the effect of the violation is that a great majority of
Tanzanians who do not belong to political parties have been discriminated
against and denied the opportunity to take part in public affairs or from being
elected.

Applications No 009&011 – Tanganyika Law Society and The Legal and Human Rights Centre and Reverend Christopher Mtikila V. The United Republic of Tanzania

CASE NOTE
REVEREND CHRISTOPHER R. MTIKILA V THE UNITED REPUBLUC OF TANZANIA
APPLICATION  NO. 011/2011
A. THE PARTIES
1. The Applicant, Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila, is a citizen of the United
Republic of Tanzania. He is represented by Counsels, Setondji Adjovi, Mary R.
Birdi, Deogratias M. Njau and Megan R. Thompson, all of  Etudes Vihode of
Benin,  Charles Adeogun-Phillips of Charles Anthony LLP (Nigeria) and Francis
Dako of Cabinet Francis Dako, Benin.
2. The Respondent is the United Republic of Tanzania and is a State Party to the
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Charter) having ratified it
on 18 February 1984 and in respect of which it entered into force on 21 October
1986. The Respondent is a State Party to the Protocol to the African Charter on
Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human
and Peoples’ Rights (Protocol Establishing the Court)  which it ratified on 6
February 2006. The applicant alleges that the Respondent  has  deposited the
Declaration required under Article 34(6) of the Protocol Establishing the Court
allowing individuals and NGOs with Observer Status before the Commission to
directly access the Court. Further, the Respondent is also a State Party to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) since 11 June 1976.
3. The Respondent is represented by:
1. Mr. George M. Masaju, Deputy Attorney General
Attorney General’s Chambers
Dar es Salaam
2. Mr. Mathew Mwaimu, Director of Constitutional Affairs and Human Rights
Attorney General’s Chambers
Dar es Salaam
3. Mrs. Irene Kasyanju-Assistant Director and Head of Legal Affairs Unit
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation
Dar es SalaamPage 2 of 6
4. Ms. Sarah Mwaipopo, Senior State Attorney
Attorney General’s Chambers
Dar es Salaam
5. Mrs. Alesia Mbuya, Senior State Attorney
Attorney General’s Chambers
Dar es Salaam
6. Mr. Benedict Msuya Second Secretary/Legal Officer
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation
Dar es Salaam