Wakilii

Pan African Lawyers Union and Others v Attorney General of the Republic of United Republic of Tanzania (Consolidated References No. 25 of 2020; Consolidated References No. 27 of 2020)

East African Court of Justice · [2026] EACJ 2 · 2026 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated references challenging provisions of the Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, No. 3 of 2020 as violations of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights
Decision
References partly allowed; Respondent ordered to repeal or amend Sections 4(2) and 4(3) of BRADEA within six months

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 Court held that it has jurisdiction to interpret the Treaty even where human rights violations are alleged as breaches of Treaty principles. Sections 4(2) and 4(3) of BRADEA, which curtail public interest litigation by requiring personal interest affidavits and subordinating constitutional standing rights, violate Articles 6(d), 7(2) and 8(1)(c) of the Treaty. The enactment of the Impugned Act under a Certificate of Urgency without adequate public participation also violated the Treaty. However, Sections 4(4) and 4(5) of BRADEA and Sections 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 45, 48 and 49 of the Impugned Act were upheld as proportionate limitations serving legitimate objectives.

Outcome

References partly allowed; Respondent ordered to repeal or amend Sections 4(2) and 4(3) of BRADEA within six months

Facts

Five civil society organizations challenged provisions of Tanzania's Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, No. 3 of 2020, which amended the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act and other statutes. The amendments introduced requirements for affidavits demonstrating personal interest before constitutional petitions could be admitted, subjected Article 26(2) of the Constitution to Article 30(3), designated the Attorney General as the proper party for suits against high officials, required exhaustion of alternative remedies, and made various other procedural changes. The Act was passed under a Certificate of Urgency with compressed timelines for public consultation. The Applicants contended these provisions curtailed public interest litigation, violated principles of good governance, rule of law, and accountability, and were enacted without meaningful public participation. The Respondent maintained the amendments were procedural safeguards against frivolous litigation and were enacted in accordance with parliamentary procedures.

Issues

  1. Whether the East African Court of Justice has jurisdiction to hear and determine the consolidated references
  2. Whether the provisions of Sections 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 45, 48 and 49 of the Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, No. 3 of 2020 violate the principles of rule of law, accountability, good governance and right to an effective remedy as provided for under Articles 6(d), 7(2), 8(c) of the EAC Treaty and Articles 3, 7 and 13 of the African Charter
  3. Whether Sections 4(2), 4(3), 4(4) and 4(5) of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act (as amended) violate the Treaty and the African Charter
  4. Whether the enactment of laws under certificate of urgency by the respondent is a violation of the EAC Treaty and the African Charter
  5. What remedies, if any, are the parties entitled to

Orders

  • Declaration that Sections 4(2) and 4(3) of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act (as amended) are inconsistent with and violate Articles 6(d), 7(2) and 8(1)(c) of the Treaty
  • Order directing the Respondent to take all necessary steps, within six (6) months from the date of this Judgment, to repeal or amend the offending provisions so as to restore the full scope of public interest litigation as recognized under Article 26(2) of the Constitution and the jurisprudence of the Tanzanian Courts
  • Each party shall bear its own costs

Rules and key headnotes

Jurisdiction of Regional Courts — Human Rights Claims as Treaty Violations
The East African Court of Justice has jurisdiction under Article 27(1) of the Treaty to interpret and apply the Treaty even where human rights violations are alleged, provided those violations are pleaded and established as breaches of the Treaty's fundamental and operational principles enshrined in Articles 6(d), 7(2) and 8(1)(c), and the human rights standards are invoked as interpretive aids rather than independent causes of action.
Limitations on Rights — Three-Part Test
Any restriction imposed by a Partner State on rights and principles protected under the Treaty must satisfy a three-part test: (i) it must be prescribed by law in clear, accessible, precise and foreseeable terms; (ii) it must pursue a pressing and substantial objective in a democratic society; and (iii) it must be proportionate to the objective sought, with minimal impairment of the right, rational connection to the objective, and overall balance favouring the measure. The evidential and persuasive burden of proving all three limbs rests cumulatively on the State.
Public Interest Litigation — Standing Requirements
A statutory provision requiring an affidavit demonstrating personal interest before admission of constitutional petitions, which effectively curtails public interest litigation recognized under constitutional jurisprudence, fails the proportionality test where it operates as a pre-admission filter without judicial assessment, duplicates existing safeguards against frivolous petitions, and disproportionately burdens marginalized groups while creating discriminatory hierarchies of access to justice.
Separation of Powers — Legislative Amendment of Constitutional Interpretation
An Act of Parliament cannot lawfully overrule, subordinate or effectively rewrite a constitutional provision that has been authoritatively interpreted by superior courts. Any such attempt constitutes an impermissible indirect amendment of the Constitution by ordinary legislation and strikes at the heart of the rule of law, constitutional supremacy and the separation of powers.
Designation of Proper Party — Attorney General as Respondent
A statutory provision designating the Attorney General as the proper party for constitutional petitions against high officials acting in their official capacity does not confer immunity but serves the legitimate objectives of preventing state paralysis and ensuring effective implementation of court orders. Where the provision is narrowly tailored to official-capacity acts, preserves personal-capacity suits, and does not bar relief, it satisfies the proportionality test and does not violate principles of accountability or separation of powers.
Exhaustion of Remedies — Constitutional Petitions as Last Resort
A statutory requirement that petitioners exhaust all available remedies under other written laws before seeking constitutional redress serves the legitimate objectives of preventing forum-shopping, promoting judicial efficiency, and preserving constitutional remedies as extraordinary measures of last resort. Where the requirement is not absolute and courts retain discretion to entertain petitions where alternative remedies are inadequate, the provision satisfies the proportionality test.
Legislative Process — Certificate of Urgency and Public Participation
The enactment of legislation under a Certificate of Urgency violates Treaty principles of democracy, good governance and public participation where the State fails to demonstrate a concrete, time-sensitive imperative justifying compressed timelines, and where the curtailed consultation period (five days) materially diminishes opportunities for meaningful public input and parliamentary scrutiny on amendments affecting multiple statutes including constitutional enforcement mechanisms, absent any demonstrated crisis or genuine necessity.

Legislation cited (16)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Articles 6(d), 7(2), 8(1)(c), 27(1), 27(2), 30(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Articles 2, 3(1), 3(2), 7(1)(a), 7(1)(c), 10, 13
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, 2019 Rules 1(2), 25, 63, 78
  • Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, No. 3 of 2020 Sections 7, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 45, 48, 49
  • Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, Cap. 3 [R.E. 2019] Sections 4, 4(2), 4(3), 4(4), 4(5), 8(2)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, 1977 Articles 26(2), 30(3), 30(5), 46, 59, 87, 97
  • Interpretation of Laws Act
  • Judiciary Administration Act
  • Law Reform (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act
  • Law Revision Act
  • National Assembly (Administration) Act
  • Presidential Affairs Act
  • Companies Act of Tanzania
  • Non-Governmental Organization Act No. 24 of 2002
  • Tanganyika Law Society Act, Cap. 307 [R.E. 2002]
  • Fair Competition Act

Cases cited (11)

  • James Katabazi & 21 Others v Secretary General of the East African Community & Attorney General of Uganda (EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2007)
  • Plaxeda Rugumba v Secretary General of the East African Community (EACJ Reference No. 8 of 2020)
  • Burundian Journalists Union v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi (EACJ Reference No. 7 of 2013)
  • The Managing Editor, Mseto & Others v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (EACJ Reference No. 7 of 2016)
  • Media Council of Tanzania & 2 Others v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (EACJ Reference No. 2 of 2017)
  • Independent Medico-Legal Unit v Attorney General of Kenya (EACJ Reference No. 3 of 2016)
  • Christopher Mtikila v Attorney General [1995] TLR 31
  • Attorney General v Jeremia Mtobesya (Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2016)
  • Human Rights Network Uganda & 4 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 56 of 2013) [2020] UGCC 6
  • Tanzania Cigarette Company Ltd v Fair Competition Commission & Attorney General (Misc. Civil Cause No. 31 of 2010)
  • Paul Revocatus Kaunda v Attorney General (Misc. Civil Cause No. 33 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Pan African Lawyers Union and Others v Attorney General of the Republic of United Republic of Tanzania (Consolidated References No. 25 of 2020; Consolidated References No. 27 of 2020) [2026] EACJ 2 (27 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.