court to pass ruling on CA sessions today

Tanganyika Law Society (TLS)

The High Court, Dar es Salaam Zone, is today expected to rule in a case filed against the ongoing Constituent Assembly (CA).

 

The ruling will be made by a panel of judges Augustine Mwarija, Aloysius Mujulizi and Fauz Twaib. In its argument the applicant  Tanganyika Law Society (TLS) through advocate Mpare Mpoki, told the court that there is a debatable case which needs the court's intervention.

 

"In the present application, truly there is an arguable case warranting the intervention of this court. The way and manner that the Constitution Review process is going on needs court intervention," Mpoki submitted.

 

The defence led by Deputy Attorney General George Masaju and assisted by Senior State Attorneys Gabriel Malata and Sylivia Matiku, objected to the application on grounds that it was supported by a defective affidavit and requested the court to dismiss the application with costs.

 

In the application, TLS is seeking the court's permission to institute a case opposing several undertakings of the CA in respect to the drafting the new Constitution of Tanzania. 

 

TLS wants the court to apply an order of injunction, declaration and mandamus to intervene in the ongoing CA sessions arguing that they are contrary to the law. 

 

It also wants to compel the AG to table a bill for the Parliament to amend the Constitutional Review Act in order to remove all irregularities as maybe pronounced by the court.

 

It is seeking to apply orders for an injunction to suspend continuation of the CA meetings pending compliance to a proper constitution making process. This should have maximum participation, representation and the wishes of citizens of Tanzania, it says.

 

According to the application, TLS seeks a declaration order in connection with the fact that the composition of the CA is irregular and unconstitutional. Further, it compromises the powers and rights of Tanzanians to make their own constitution, it says.

 

The TLS also alleges that the CA acted irregularly by amending Standing Orders so that the voting process circumvents the procedure provided for by the law of voting for one provision after another.