Wakilii

Mbowe and Others v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (Reference No.3 of 2019; Reference No.4 of 2019)

East African Court of Justice · [2022] EACJ 4 · 2022 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated References challenging the constitutionality of the Political Parties (Amendment) Act No. 1 of 2019 under the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community
Decision
Application partly allowed; certain provisions of the Political Parties (Amendment) Act No. 1 of 2019 declared in violation of the Treaty; Respondent directed to bring the Act into conformity with the Treaty

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 East African Court of Justice held that it had jurisdiction to hear the consolidated References and that several provisions of Tanzania's Political Parties (Amendment) Act No. 1 of 2019 violated the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community. Applying a three-tier proportionality test, the Court found that Sections 3, 4, 5, 9, 15 and 29 of the Act violated Articles 6(d), 7(2) and 8(1)(c) of the Treaty by imposing unjustified restrictions on freedom of association, democracy, rule of law and good governance. The Respondent was directed to bring the Act into conformity with the Treaty.

Outcome

Application partly allowed; certain provisions of the Political Parties (Amendment) Act No. 1 of 2019 declared in violation of the Treaty; Respondent directed to bring the Act into conformity with the Treaty

Facts

Six Applicants, comprising five natural persons (political party leaders and members in Tanzania) and one NGO, challenged the Political Parties (Amendment) Act No. 1 of 2019 enacted by Tanzania's Parliament. The Act amended the Political Parties Act Cap. 258 and was assented to on 13 February 2019. The Applicants contended that specific provisions of the Act imposed unjustified restrictions on freedom of association, democracy, rule of law and good governance. The impugned provisions gave the Registrar of Political Parties extensive powers including monitoring intra-party elections, regulating civic education, demanding information from parties, imposing citizenship requirements for party registration, and suspending members from political activities. The Respondent argued the Act promoted institutionalism, intra-party democracy and accountability, and that the restrictions were reasonable and justified. During the proceedings, the Fourth Applicant passed away but the hearing proceeded with the parties' agreement.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Reference.
  2. Whether the cited provisions of the Political Parties (Amendment) Act No. 1 of 2019 violate Articles 6(d), 7(2) and 8(1)(c) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community.
  3. Whether the parties are entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Declaration that the provisions of Sections 3, 4, 5, 9, 15 and 29 of the Political Parties (Amendment) Act No. 1 of 2019 violate Articles 6(d), 7(2) and 8(1)(c) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community.
  • The Respondent is directed to take such measures as are necessary to bring the Political Parties (Amendment) Act No. 1 of 2019 into conformity with the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Treaty Obligations — Fundamental Principles — Democracy, Rule of Law and Good Governance
The fundamental principles set out in Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community, including adherence to democracy, rule of law, accountability, transparency, social justice and human rights, are not merely aspirational but constitute binding Treaty obligations that Partner States must strictly observe.
Proportionality Test — Limitations on Rights — Three-Tier Test
To determine whether a national law is consistent with the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community, a three-tier proportionality test must be applied: (a) Is the limitation prescribed by law in a manner that is clear and accessible? (b) Is the objective of the law pressing and substantial? (c) Has the State chosen a proportionate way to achieve its objectives?
Statutory Powers — Clarity and Precision — Vagueness
A statutory provision that grants regulatory powers must be drafted with sufficient clarity and precision to enable citizens to understand what is prohibited or required and to adapt their behaviour accordingly. A provision that uses vague or imprecise terms such as 'monitor' or 'regulate' without defining the parameters of the power fails the first tier of the proportionality test.
Political Parties — Intra-Party Democracy — Registrar's Powers
A statutory provision empowering a Registrar of Political Parties to monitor intra-party elections without defining the nature and extent of such monitoring lacks the requisite clarity and precision, and fails to meet the standard that citizens must be able to understand what is prohibited or required under the law.
Political Parties — Civic Education — Registrar's Approval
A statutory provision requiring persons or institutions to notify the Registrar of Political Parties before conducting civic education or capacity building training for political parties, and empowering the Registrar to disapprove such training without clear parameters, constitutes an unjustified limitation on freedom of expression and access to information where no pressing and substantial objective is demonstrated.
Political Parties — Citizenship Requirements — Discrimination
A statutory provision requiring that persons applying for registration of a political party must be citizens by birth with both parents also being citizens is discriminatory against citizens who do not have both parents as citizens, and fails the proportionality test where no legitimate objective is demonstrated for such exclusion.
Political Parties — Coalitions — Internal Decision-Making
A statutory provision requiring that decisions on political party coalitions can only be made by members in general meeting, without allowing delegation to other party organs in accordance with the party's constitution, is a disproportionate limitation on the right of political parties to organize themselves internally and fails the third tier of the proportionality test.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 6(d)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 7(2)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 8(1)(c)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 27
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30
  • Political Parties (Amendment) Act No. 1 of 2019
  • Political Parties Act Cap. 258
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2019
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Article 20(2)(b)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights

Cases cited (17)

  • Anyang' Nyong'o and Others v Attorney General of Kenya and Others (EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2006)
  • Geoffrey Magezi v Attorney General of Uganda (EACJ Reference No. 5 of 2013)
  • Democratic Party v Secretary General and Attorneys General of Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda and Burundi (EACJ Reference No. 2 of 2012)
  • James Katabazi and 21 Others v Attorney General of Uganda and Another (EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2007)
  • East African Law Society v Attorney General of Burundi (EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2014)
  • Burundi Journalists Union v Attorney General of Burundi (EACJ Reference No. 70 of 2013)
  • British American Tobacco (U) Ltd v Attorney General of Uganda (EACJ Reference No. 7 of 2017)
  • Media Council of Tanzania and 20 Others v Attorney General of Tanzania (EACJ Reference No. 2 of 2017)
  • Angella Amudo v Secretary General of the EAC (EACJ Appeal No. 4 of 2014)
  • Eric Kabalisa Makala v Attorney General of Rwanda (EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2017)
  • Attorney General of Tanzania v African Network for Animal Welfare (EACJ Appeal No. 3 of 2011)
  • Alcon International Ltd v Standard Chartered Bank of Uganda, Attorney General of Uganda and Registrar, High Court of Uganda (EACJ Appeal No. 3 of 2013)
  • Samuel Mukira Muhochi v Attorney General of Uganda (EACJ Reference No. 5 of 2011)
  • Plaxeda Rugumba v Attorney General of Rwanda (EACJ Appeal No. 1 of 2012)
  • R v Oakes [1986] 1 SCR 103
  • CORD v Republic of Kenya and Others (HC Petition No. 682 of 2014)
  • Konate v Burkina Faso (App No. 004/2013) (2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mbowe and Others v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (Reference No.3 of 2019; Reference No.4 of 2019) [2022] EACJ 4 (25 March 2022)
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.