TASK, The cause of new Chriphopher Mtikila v Attoryney General 1995 .case number 31 Tanzania Law Report
The
case was held in THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA-DODOMA.
The
parties of the case was sided by Rev Christopher Mtikila v. Attorney General case of 1995 TLR case
number 31. Due to those parties of that
case was including the parties of petitioner as Christopher Mtikila respondent
to Attorney General about the human right campaigner and the political activist
The
material fact of the case was about litigation of public affairs, This was
among of the litigation due to the public affairs as a person to participate in
different public issues in the societies and due to the high court they
specified this by justified in article 26(2) which states tat “Every person has
the right in accordance with the procedure provided by law to take legal action
to ensure protection of this constitution and the law of the land “So due to
those expression ensure that in public affairs every person has the right to
practice this either in protection or to take legal action for the problem.
The
issue of the case is whether the power
of Parliament to amend constitution limitless, whether the petitioner has locus
stand under article 30(3) of constitution, whether parliament can amend
constitution safeguard the fundamental rights, whether sufficient interest is
necessary in public litigation under article 20(2) of the constitution ,
whether suit in same material fact
pending by another court subsequent suit can be institute, whether appointment
of the person from Zanzibar to hold non union office in main land is
constitution
In
this petition the dispute is over the validity of various laws and that a
suffices to constitute a cause of action it is not always necessary for powers
under those laws to be exercised first so as to give rise to a cause of action,
Parliament is given very wide powers to amend constitutional provisions,
including those providing for basic human rights but those powers of parliament
can only be exercised subject to the limits imposed by articles 30(2) and (3)
of the constitution what is powers of parliament c to amend is only the ethic
of human right but not the letter by which those right are expressed.
The
statement of the law in this case is the constitutional law. The Civil Procedure
Code, 1966, Political Parties Act 1992, Police Force Ordinance, News Paper Act 1976.
These
provisions are alleged to inhibit the formation of political party and there
for infringe the freedom of association. I am called upon to declare them unconstitutional
and void. The fifth issue arises from the amendment to acts 39, 67 and 77 as
well as s 39 of the local authorities (Elections) Act 1979. This amendment
renders it impossible for independent candidate to contest presidential,
parliamentary or local council elections. I am again called upon to remedy the
situation B in the third issue the petition take on s 5(2), 13, 25, and 37-47
of the News papers Act, 1976 [NO 3] section 5{2) empowers the minister
responsible for matters relating to newspaper from the operation of C any of
the provisions relating to the registration of news papers to execute and
register a bond in the office of the registrar of newspapers. The fourth issue
turns on the freedom of peaceful assembly and public expression and questions
the constitutionally of section 40, 41, 42, 43 of the police Force Ordinance
cap 322 as well as a 11{1) and (2} of the Political Parties Act.
In
such a grave and serious affair that it cannot be arrived at by mere inferences
however attractive and apprehend that this would require proof beyond
reasonable doubt. I have there for not found I in a position to make the
declaration sought and I desist from doing so. Finally each prayed for costs. I
cannot find my way to award any. In the first place the record suggests that
this was a legal aid case and I don’t quite see how the question of costs
arises. Additionally, I think this was balanced case where both sides won and
lost. The parties will therefore bear their respective costs.
REFERENCES
The
Constitution of United Republic of Tanzania 1977
Case
of Christopher Mtikila v. Attorney General TLR 31[HC]
Comments
Post a Comment