Mahakama ya Afrika yaiagiza Tanzania kufanya marekebisho ya sheria inayowapa mamlaka Wakurugenzi wa Halmashauri kusimamia uchaguzi

Delivery of Judgements on 13th June 2023 : including the Case Application 011 / 2020 - Bob Chacha Wangwe and Legal and Human Rights Centre vs United Republic of Tanzania ​

The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights is an international court established by African countries to ensure and protect human and peoples' rights, freedoms and duties in Africa. It complements and reinforces the functions of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights.

Click to expand...

Desprospero said:

Mahakama ya Haki ya Afrika imeiamuru Serikali ya Tanzania kuacha mara moja kuwatumia Wakurugenzi wa Halmashauri na Manispaa kusimamia uchaguzi wa Wabunge

Mahakama hiyo imetoa agizo hilo lisiloweza kukatiwa rufaa jijini Arusha ambako Mwanasheria Bob Chacha Wangwe alifungua kesi hiyo baada ya kushindwa katika Mahakama ya Rufaa jijini Dar es salaam.

Wangwe alidai ma-DED kusimamia chaguzi ni kupoka haki ya wananchi ya kuchagua kwa uhuru. Duru za kisiasa zinadai kwamba Rais Samia Suluhu Hassan amefurahishwa na hukumu hii lakini viongozi mbalimbali wa CCM wamenuna.

Click to expand...

bagamoyo said:

Sasa serikali isisubiri kusukumwa kukazia hukumu hii kabla ya 2025


13 June 2023
Arusha, Tanzania

Application 011/2020 - Bob Chacha Wangwe and Legal and Human Rights Centre vs United Republic of Tanzania​

II. SUBJECT OF THE APPLICATION
A. Facts of the Matter
3. The Applicants challenge the provisions of the National Elections Act and they
claim that the Respondent State, by enacting and implementing the impugned
provisions, violated numerous rights including the right to equality before the
law ; the citizen’s right to participate freely in the government of his country,
either directly or through freely chosen representative, the right to vote and be
elected at genuine periodic election and the right to equal access to public.
B. Alleged violations
4. The Applicants allege that the Respondent State has violated fundamental rights
guaranteed in article(s) 1, 13 (1), 21 (1) and (3); 25 (2) & 26; 21 (1) & 21 (2). 74
(14) of the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (hereinafter
referred to as “the UDHR), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the ICCPR) and the Constitution of the United
Republic of Tanzania, respectively.

JUDGEMENT:

The Applicants alleged that the Respondent State had violated their right to participate in the
government of their country contrary to Article 13(1) of the Charter and also their right to
equality before the law and to equal protection of the law contrary to Article 3 of the Charter.
The Applicants submitted that section 6(1) of the NEA violated the Charter because the
Director of Elections is appointed by the President who is the Chairperson of the ruling party
and also among the contestants in elections. This manner of appointing the Director of
Elections, the Applicants contended, raised questions of impartiality and independence of the
Electoral Commission. The Applicants also submitted that section 6(1) “lacks the criteria for
the appointment of the Director of Elections and thus, makes it wide, broad and vague, and
subject to abuse”.
The Court noted that at the core of the Applicants’ grievances, in respect of the appointment
of the Director of Elections, was the question of the independence and impartiality of the office.
In line with its jurisprudence, the Court pointed out that States have latitude in terms of
configuring their electoral management bodies while bearing in mind the overriding
responsibility of establishing an institution that is independent and impartial.
Having considered the Parties’ arguments, and given the various methods for constituting
electoral management bodies in use in Africa, the Court held that there is no violation of Article
13(1) of the Charter by the mere reason that the Director of Elections is appointed by the
President. It also held that Article 13(1) of the Charter is not violated simply on the basis that
the President makes the appointment of the Director of Elections following recommendation(s)
by the Electoral Commission.
In respect of the Applicants’ allegation that section 6(1) of the NEA “lacks the criteria for the
appointment of the Director of Elections and thus, makes it wide, broad and vague, and subject
to abuse”, the Court observed that, indeed, section 6(1) did not set out any qualifications that
an appointee for the position must possess in order to qualify for appointment.
The Court thus found it anomalous that the Respondent State’s laws contain no provisions
stipulating the qualifications that one must possess to be appointed a Director of Elections.
The Court held, therefore, that in relation to the head of the Electoral Commission’s secretariat,
it behoved the Respondent State to appoint individuals of the highest calibre who can
independently, impartially and transparently coordinate the management of the electoral
process. However, without a clearly laid out qualifications scheme, the considerations that the
appointing authority may take into mind when appointing a Director of Elections were unclear.
The Court found that this exposed the process not only to uncertainty but also the possible
consideration of irrelevant factors.

Given the violations of the Charter that the Court had established, it also found a violation of
Article 1 of the Charter.
On reparations, the Court reiterated its established jurisprudence that for reparations to be
granted, the Respondent State should, first, be internationally responsible for the wrongful act.
Second, causation should be established between the wrongful act and the alleged prejudice.
Furthermore, and where it is granted, reparation should cover the full prejudice suffered.
Finally, the Applicant bears the onus to justify the claims made.
The Court having found that sections 6(1), 7(2) and 7(3) of the NEA, in part, violate Article
13(1) of the Charter, ordered the Respondent State to take all necessary constitutional and
legislative measures, within a reasonable time and without any undue delay, to ensure that
these provisions are amended and aligned with the provisions of the Charter so as to eliminate
the violations of Article 13(1) of the Charter as established.
The Court also noted that the violations that it had established raised critical matters of public
concern and specifically in relation to the management of electoral processes within the
Respondent State. In the circumstances, the Court deemed it proper to make an order suo
motu for publication of this Judgment. The Court, therefore, ordered the Respondent State to
publish this Judgment within a period of three (3) months from the date of notification, on the
websites of the Judiciary and the Ministry for Constitutional and Legal Affairs, and to ensure
that the text of the Judgment remains accessible for at least one (1) year after the date of
publication.
On implementation of decisions, the Court reiterated that this is required as a matter of judicial
practice. The Court, therefore, ordered the Respondent State to submit to it within twelve (12)
months from the date of notification of this Judgment, a report on the status of implementation
of the decision set forth herein and thereafter, every six (6) months until the Court considered
that there has been full implementation thereof.
Each Party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Justice Rafaâ BEN ACHOUR issued a Dissenting Opinion.
Further Information
Further information about this case, including the full text of the decision of the African Court,
may be found on the website at: African Court Cases | Details of a case
For any other queries, please contact the Registry by email registrar@african-court.or

READ MORE :

Source : African Court Cases | Details of a case

The Respondent State argues that
“The right to participate in the conduct of business is not absolute, insofar
as it may be legitimately restricted by law”. Relying on Article 27(2) of the
Charter and the decision of the Court in Tanganyika Law Society and
Legal and Human Rights Centre, Reverend Christopher Mtikila v.
Tanzania, the Respondent State argues that “the restrictions on persons
eligible for appointment to the position of Director of Elections are
reasonable and justifiable. The appointment of a civil servant to the
position of Director of Elections is in the public interest, as it is easy to
verify his or her ethical, professional and academic background, since the
public service is governed by a well-established legal framework”.
5. The Respondent State’s reasoning found favour with the majority of the Court,
which found that
“Section 6(1) of the NEA is not in violation of the Charter insofar as it
restricts the appointment of the Director of Elections only to candidates
from the public service”.
2
6. It is this finding, and the reasoning behind it, that I disagree with. Indeed, I believe
that reserving the position of Director of Elections only to public servants openly
violates the principle of equality of all before the law.
3
It is exclusive and
discriminatory and cannot be justified on any objective basis.
2§ 93 of the Judgement.
3Principle proclaimed by Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December
1948: “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the
law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and
against any incitement to such discrimination”, and reiterated in Article 26 of the International Covenant.

The Court composed of: Blaise TCHIKAYA, Vice-President; Ben KIOKO, Rafaâ BEN
ACHOUR, Suzanne MENGUE, Tujilane R. CHIZUMILA, Chafika BENSAOULA, Stella
I. ANUKAM, Dumisa B. NTSEBEZA, Modibo SACKO, Dennis D ADJEI – Judges; and
Robert ENO, Registrar.
In accordance with Article 22 of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and
Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Protocol”) and Rule 9(2) of the Rules of Court (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”),1 Justice Imani D. ABOUD, President of the Court and a national of Tanzania, did not hear the Application.

In the Matter of:
Bob Chacha WANGWE and Legal and Human Rights Centre

Represented by:

i. Advocate Jebra KAMBOLE, Law Guards Advocates;

ii. Advocate Fulgence MASSAWE, Legal and Human Rights Centre; and

iii. Advocate Amani JOACHIM, Legal and Human Rights Centre.

Versus

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
Represented by:

i. Dr Boniface Nalija LUHENDE, Solicitor General, Office of the Solicitor General;

ii. Ms Sarah Duncan MWAIPOPO, Deputy Solicitor General, Office of the
Solicitor General;

iii. Mr Vincent E. A. TANGOH, Director, Civil Litigation, Office of the Solicitor
General;

iv. Ms Alesia A MBUYA, Assistant Director, Constitutional, Human Rights and
Election Petitions, Principal State Attorney, Office of the Solicitor General;

v. Daniel NYAKIHA, State Attorney, Office of the Solicitor General;

vi. Vivian METHOD, State Attorney, Office of the Solicitor General;

vii. Ms Caroline Kitana CHIPETA, Acting Director, Legal Affairs, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and East African Cooperation; and

viii. Ms Blandina KASAGAMA, Legal Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and East
African Cooperation.

Click to expand...

011 / 2020 - Bob Chacha Wangwe and Legal and Human Rights Centre vs United Republic of Tanzania​

Click to expand...

bagamoyo said:

Serikali yapewa agizo na Mahakama ya Afrika kuitundika hukumu hii ya kihistoria katika tovuti, mitandao, ofisi za umma za sheria kote Tanzania ili raia waisome hukumu hii

Click to expand...

Serikali kukata rufaa hukumu ya kesi ya Chacha Wangwe​

HUKUMU : WAKURUGENZI MARUFUKU KUSIMAMIA UCHAGUZI MKUU, SHERIA YABATILISHWA​

Bejamini Netanyahu said:

Utekelezaji ndiyo itakuwa shida maana hiyo mahakama haina meno, pia Jaji wa Mahakama ya rufaa anakuwa mjinga kiasi kile anabariki MaDED kusimamia uchaguzi kwa kigezo cha kiapo? pumbafu kabisa

Click to expand...

Nyakijooga said:

Kesi itakayotolewa uamuzi Leo ni kesi iliyofunguliwa na Mwanaharakati Bob Chacha Wangwe dhidi ya Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania ambayo inapinga Vifungu vya Sheria ya Taifa ya Uchaguzi ambavyo vinaruhusu wakurugenzi kuwa wasimamizi wa uchaguzi, ikidiwa kuwa 'makada wa Chama Cha Mapinduzi' ambacho ni chama tawala hivyo mpeleka maombi anadai kuwa ni vigumu uchaguzi kuwa wa huru na wa haki, lakini pia inadaiwa kuwa vifungu hivyo vinakiuka haki ya usawa mbele ya sheria ikiwa ni pamoja na haki ya wananchi kuchagua viongozi wao wanaowataka kwa uhuru.

UPDATES:
Mahakama ya Afrika ya Haki za Binadamu na Watu imeagiza Serikali ya Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania kufanya marekebisho ya sheria ya Taifa ya uchaguzi inayotoa uhalali kwa Wakurugenzi (DED) kusimamia uchaguzi.

Uamuzi huo umetolewa kufuatia kutupilia mbali kwa mara nyingine ushahidi wa upande wa Serikali kwenye ile kesi ya kupinga hiyo.

Kufuatia maelekezo hayo mahakama hiyo imeielekeza Serikali ndani miezi 12 kupeleka ripoti ya utekelezaji wa uamuzi huo.

Ikumbukwe Kesi hiyo ambayo uamuzi wake umetolewa leo June 13, 2023, ilifunguliwa na Mwanaharakati Bob Chacha Wangwe dhidi ya Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania ambayo inapinga Vifungu vya Sheria ya Taifa ya Uchaguzi ambavyo vinaruhusu wakurugenzi kuwa wasimamizi wa uchaguzi,

Ambapo mlalakaji alidai kuwa Wakurugenzi hao ni 'makada wa Chama Cha Mapinduzi' ambacho ni chama tawala hivyo kumpelekea uchaguzi kushindwa kuwa wa huru na wa haki. Lakini pia inadaiwa kuwa vifungu hivyo vinakiuka haki ya usawa mbele ya sheria ikiwa ni pamoja na haki ya wananchi kuchagua viongozi wao wanaowataka kwa uhuru.

Inaweza kukumbukwa kwenye uchaguzi wa mwaka 2020 baadhi ya wadau hususani wanasiasa wa vyama vya upinzani Tanzania na Wanaharakati walikosoa vipengere hivyo vinavyotoa mamlaka kwa Wakurugenzi kusimamia uchaguzi, wakitaja Wakurugenzi hao waliokuwa na dhamana kuwa ni makada wa Chama tawala hivyo ilikuwa ni vigumu kwao kusimamia misingi na taratibu za uchaguzi licha ya baadhi ya wengine kuwa na mtazamo tofauti.

Akizungumza kuhusu kesi hiyo mara baada ya uamuzi,Wakili wa upande wa mleta maombi, Jebra Kambole amesema kuwa walichukua uamuzi wa kufungua shauri hilo wakiamini wanaweza kupata haki licha ya kushindwa kwenye mahakama ya rufaa.

“Baada ya kushindwa hiyo kesi mahakama ya Rufaa tuliamini kuna haki zetu hazijawa sawa kwahiyo tukapeleka kesi kwenye mahakama ya Afrika ya Haki za Binadamu na Watu, kwamba vile vifungu vinavyotoa mamlaka kwa wakurugenzi (DED) vinakiuka mkataba wa Afrika wa Haki za Binadamu na Watu”amesema Wakili Jebra Kambore

Ameongeza kuwa “Mahakama imekubaliana na sisi kuwa sheria haijaweka vigezo vya Wakurugenzi hao kusimamia uchaguzi, mahakama imeona kuwa kutokana na kutokuwepo kwa vigezo ni kwamba mtu yoyote anaweza kusimamia uchaguzi. Mahakama imesema Wakurugenzi wasisimamie uchaguzi"

Ikumbukwe Kesi hiyo ambayo uamuzi wake umetolewa leo June 13, 2023, ilifunguliwa na Mwanaharakati Bob Chacha Wangwe dhidi ya Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania ambayo inapinga Vifungu vya Sheria ya Taifa ya Uchaguzi ambavyo vinaruhusu wakurugenzi kuwa wasimamizi wa uchaguzi.

Ambapo mlalakaji alidai kuwa Wakurugenzi hao ni 'makada wa Chama Cha Mapinduzi' ambacho ni chama tawala hivyo kumpelekea uchaguzi kushindwa kuwa wa huru na wa haki. Lakini pia inadaiwa kuwa vifungu hivyo vinakiuka haki ya usawa mbele ya sheria ikiwa ni pamoja na haki ya wananchi kuchagua viongozi wao wanaowataka kwa uhuru.

Inaweza kukumbukwa kwenye uchaguzi wa mwaka 2020 baadhi ya wadau hususani wanasiasa wa vyama vya upinzani Tanzania na Wanaharakati walikosoa vipengere hivyo vinavyotoa mamlaka kwa Wakurugenzi kusimamia uchaguzi, wakitaja Wakurugenzi hao waliokuwa na dhamana kuwa ni makada wa Chama tawala hivyo ilikuwa ni vigumu kwao kusimamia misingi na taratibu za uchaguzi licha ya baadhi ya wengine kuwa na mtazamo tofauti.

View attachment 2655696​

Click to expand...