Wakilii

Legal and Human Rights Center and Liberatus Mwang'ombe v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 041-2020)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2026] AfCHPR 6 · 2026 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights challenging restrictions on voting rights for detainees and diaspora citizens under Tanzanian law
Decision
Application declared partly admissible; Court remains seized of the matter to examine the merits, reparations and costs

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights held that it has jurisdiction to determine the application challenging Tanzania's restrictions on voting rights for detainees and diaspora citizens. The Court dismissed objections to its material jurisdiction, finding that it may examine whether domestic proceedings comply with Charter standards. On admissibility, the Court held that the applicants failed to exhaust local remedies regarding the challenge to the constitutionality of the National Elections Act, as domestic courts had previously adjudicated similar issues and the remedy was available. However, the Court found that a petition under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act was unavailable to the applicants due to standing requirements, and thus that remedy was considered exhausted. The Application was declared partly admissible, with the Court reserving its decision on the merits.

Outcome

Application declared partly admissible; Court remains seized of the matter to examine the merits, reparations and costs

Facts

The applicants, a human rights organization and a human rights advocate, challenged Tanzania's constitutional and legislative provisions that prohibit detainees serving certain sentences and citizens residing in the diaspora from registering and voting in presidential and parliamentary elections. The restrictions are contained in Article 5(2)(c) of the 1977 Constitution and Section 11(1)(c) of the National Elections Act. The applicants alleged that Article 74(12) of the Constitution bars any challenge to actions of the National Elections Commission, effectively preventing judicial review. They contended that these provisions violate the right to vote and participate in government, the right to non-discrimination, and the right to equality before the law. Tanzania withdrew its declaration accepting the Court's jurisdiction in November 2019, but the application was filed in November 2020, before the withdrawal took effect. Tanzania initially failed to file a response, but in May 2025 requested and was granted leave to reopen pleadings.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has material jurisdiction to determine the Application.
  2. Whether the Court has personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction.
  3. Whether the Applicants exhausted local remedies by challenging the constitutionality of the National Elections Act.
  4. Whether the Applicants exhausted local remedies by challenging the alleged restrictions under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act.
  5. Whether the Application meets all other admissibility requirements under Article 56 of the African Charter and Rule 50(2) of the Rules of Court.

Orders

  • Objections to material jurisdiction dismissed.
  • Court declares that it has jurisdiction.
  • Objection to exhaustion of local remedies on challenging the constitutionality of the NEA upheld.
  • Objection to exhaustion of local remedies regarding the alleged restrictions under the BRADEA dismissed.
  • Application declared partly admissible.
  • Decision on the merits, reparations and costs reserved.

Rules and key headnotes

Jurisdiction of International Courts — Material Jurisdiction — Relationship with Domestic Courts
The fact that issues brought before an international human rights court have been adjudicated by domestic courts does not preclude the international court from exercising its material jurisdiction, provided the court is called upon to determine whether domestic proceedings were conducted in line with the standards set out in the applicable human rights instruments.
Jurisdiction of International Courts — Material Jurisdiction — Court of First Instance
An international human rights court does not act as a court of first instance when it examines an application alleging violations of rights guaranteed in human rights instruments ratified by the respondent state, even where the applicant did not first approach domestic courts.
Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Rationale — Principle of Subsidiarity
The rationale for the rule of exhaustion of local remedies is to provide states with an opportunity to address alleged human rights violations within their jurisdiction before such matters are brought before international scrutiny, in line with the principle of subsidiarity.
Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Availability of Remedy — Public Interest Litigation
Where a domestic constitution affords access to courts to any person for the purpose of ensuring the protection of the constitution and laws, and domestic courts have entertained public interest litigation on similar issues, applicants have standing to challenge the constitutionality of legislation and must exhaust that remedy before approaching an international court.
Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Ordinary versus Extraordinary Remedies
A constitutional petition procedure is not an extraordinary remedy that need not be exhausted where the initial claim has never been adjudicated in any domestic court; in such circumstances, the remedy constitutes an ordinary remedy that must be exhausted.
Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Unavailability — Standing Requirements
Local remedies need not be exhausted in circumstances where non-governmental organizations or individuals representing the interests of others are proscribed from seizing domestic courts due to standing requirements that mandate demonstration of personal victimhood, as the local remedy is then considered unavailable.
Admissibility — Reasonable Time — Continuing Violations
In instances where alleged violations are continuous in nature, an application may be filed at any point in time after the respondent state has become a party to the relevant protocol, provided the provisions being challenged remain in force and the violations have not been remedied.

Legislation cited (49)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 1
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 2
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 13(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(5)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(6)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(7)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 6(2)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 22
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 34(6)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 2(1)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 2(2)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 7
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 25(a)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 25(b)
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 2
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 7
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 21(1)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania 1977 Article 5(1)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania 1977 Article 5(2)(c)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania 1977 Article 12
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania 1977 Article 13(2)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania 1977 Article 13(4)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania 1977 Article 26(2)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania 1977 Article 29
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania 1977 Article 74(6)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania 1977 Article 74(12)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania 1977 Article 108(2)
  • National Elections Act Section 11(1)(c)
  • Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments Act) (No. 3) of 2020 Section 7
  • Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act Section 4
  • Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act Section 4(2)
  • Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act Section 4(3)
  • Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act Section 4(4)
  • Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act Section 4(5)
  • Constitutive Act of the African Union Article 3(h)
  • Rules of Court of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Rule 9(2)
  • Rules of Court of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Rule 49(1)
  • Rules of Court of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Rule 50(1)
  • Rules of Court of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Rule 50(2)
  • Rules of Court of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Rule 50(2)(a)
  • Rules of Court of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Rule 50(2)(b)
  • Rules of Court of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Rule 50(2)(c)
  • Rules of Court of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Rule 50(2)(d)
  • Rules of Court of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Rule 50(2)(e)
  • Rules of Court of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Rule 50(2)(f)
  • Rules of Court of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Rule 50(2)(g)
  • Rules of Court of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Rule 63

Cases cited (28)

  • Andrew Ambrose Cheusi v United Republic of Tanzania (AfCHPR Application 2020)
  • Alex Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania (AfCHPR Application 2015)
  • Kennedy Owino Onyachi and Charles John Mwanini Njoka v United Republic of Tanzania (AfCHPR Application 2017)
  • Abdallah Sospeter Mabomba v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 017-2017)
  • Brahim Ben Abdelhamid Ben Mabrouk Ayed v Republic of Tunisia (Application No. 008-2019)
  • Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (AfCHPR Application 2013)
  • Igola Iguna v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 020-2017)
  • Tito Elia Magoti and Another v National Electoral Commission and Two Others (Misc. Civil Cause 3 of 2022)
  • Tito Elia Magoti and John Boniface Tulla v National Electoral Commission and Others (Misc. Civil Cause No. 3 of 2022)
  • Peter Joseph Chacha v United Republic of Tanzania (AfCHPR Application 2014)
  • Almas Mohamed Muwinda and Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 030-2017)
  • Oscar Josiah v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 053-2016)
  • Diocles William v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 016-2016)
  • Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and 9 Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 006-2013)
  • Lohé Issa Konaté v Burkina Faso (AfCHPR Application 2014)
  • Sébastien Germain Marie Aïkoué Ajavon v Republic of Benin (AfCHPR Application 2020)
  • Centre for Human Rights and Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 019-2018)
  • Mohamed Abubakari v United Republic of Tanzania (AfCHPR Application 2016)
  • Tanganyika Law Society and Legal and Human Rights Center v United Republic of Tanzania (AfCHPR Application 2013)
  • Harold Mbalanda Munthali v Republic of Malawi (Application No. 022-2017)
  • Odero Charles Odero v. Attorney General of Tanzania and Another- judgment rendered on 19 December 2022; Civil Appeal Nos. 32 and 42 of 1994
  • Attorney General and 2 Others v. Dr Aman Walid Kabourou
  • Amy B. Kibatala v. Attorney General and Another
  • Paul Revocatus Kaunda v Speaker of the National Assembly and Another (Misc. Civil Cause No. 20 of 2021)
  • Paul Revocatus Kaunda v Speaker of the National Assembly and Another (Civil Appeal No. 167 of 2021)
  • Rev. Christopher Mtikila v Attorney General [1995] TLR 66
  • Humphrey Simon Malenga v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 7 of 2023)
  • Onesmo Olengurumwa v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 134 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Legal and Human Rights Center and Liberatus Mwang'ombe v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 041-2020) [2026] AfCHPR 6 (6 March 2026)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.