By Faustine Kapama
A WRANGLE on laws
pinning down nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) has taken a new twist
after the High Court refused to dismiss a constitutional petition lodged
by
two associations propagating democracy and activism, opposing some
provisions.
Judge Steven
Magoiga dismissed all four grounds of objections presented by three
defendants, the Attorney General, the Registrar of Companies and the
Registrar of NGOs, challenging the hearing of the petition by Centre for
Strategies Litigation Limited and Change Tanzania Limited, the
petitioners.
Following such a
decision, the High Court will proceed with the hearing and determine the
petition on merits. In the case, the two petitioners are challenging
the constitutionality of some provisions under the Companies Act, the
Non- Governmental Organisation Act and the Societies Act.
They are requesting
the court to declare unconstitutional some of the sections of the Acts,
as emended by Act No 3, 2019, for allegedly contravening Articles 13(1)
(2)(6)(a) (b), 20(1) and 29(1) and (2) of the Constitution of the
United Republic of Tanzania, 1977 as amended until 2005.
On the objection
grounds, the respondents asked the court to dismiss the petition as was
untenable for being res-subjudice, the petitioners lacked the locus
standi and had not exhausted available remedies.
They also challenged the affidavit in support of the petition being incurably defective.
Counsel for the
respondents forcefully submitted that the petitioners had not lacked the
locus standi to file the petition while their registration had been
deregistered by operation of law as their legal personalities were
extinguished since August 30, 2019.
In his ruling,
however, the judge noted that the petition was lodged on August 22, 2019
before the coming into force of the deregistration law.
This means that at
the time of filing the case the petitioners had legal legs to stand. The
court found, therefore, that the petitioners had the locus standi to
file the petition.
On the question of
exhausted available means, the judge ruled that the law involved in the
petition did not provide remedies within which the petitioners could
have exhausted first before knocking court doors because the
contravention alleged was unconstitutionality of the Act No 3, 2019.
"Therefore, going
by the facts and prayers contained in the originating summons is clear
the remedies are not covered and are not available remedies on other law
and the argument by the state attorney that the said section provide
the remedy are far from convincing this court," he said.
As regards to the
defectiveness of the affidavit in support of the petition for containing
a defective verification clause, the judge found no legal point to
fault the same, as the deponents had counter signed the verification by
showing all paragraphs were true to the best of their knowledge.
"In my opinion,
this is more than enough. Had the counsel for the respondents raised the
issue of paragraphs containing untrue facts it would have a different
approach. That said and done thus point is akin to fail and it is hereby
overruled as well," Judge Magoiga ruled.
As to the
un-tenability of the petition for being res subjudice on sense that
there is a pending commercial case between Change Tanzania Limited and
Registrar of Companies and a reference between the Legal Human Right
Centre and Tanganyika Law Society pending in the East Africa Court of
Justice.
It was alleged that
the remedies sought were similar to those sought before the Court.
Nevertheless, in his ruling, the judge referred to previous court
decisions pointing out principles that could be applied to justify a
particular case is ressubjudice.
Such principals
include availability of two pending suits, one previously filed having
same parties suing under the same title, the matter in issue must be
directly and substantially be the same in the two suits and that the
suit must be pending in court of competent jurisdiction.
He noted, however,
that the factor that the suit must be directly and substantially was
missing in the petition because the prayer in the commercial case was
for the declaratory order for the petitioner to alter provisions in the
Memarts, while the petition was in respect of the constitutionality of
laws.
"Without much ado,
therefore, the prayers are different and the resultant effect is
different. The phrase the issue is also directly and substantially in
issue in previous instituted suit must have the same prayers and effect.
Once (they) are different it ceases to be directly and substantially
the same," he said.
The Centre for
Strategic Litigation is a Tanzania-based partnership that seeks to
advance the vision of a just, tolerant, vibrant and inclusive democracy
grounded on respect for rule of law and justice for all.
It deploys an
innovative approach to litigation and advocacy that seeks to promote
access to justice and public debate and education on key democratic
principles and values. The Change Tanzania is a mix of small community
volunteerism up to national activism.
It is a
non-partisan and social media movement that started on social media as
an informal grouping of individuals focused on bringing about positive,
sustainable change to Tanzania.
This movement aims
at increasing or creating people's awareness on their rights and
responsibilities to push for development and equal opportunities in
Tanzania.
No comments :
Post a Comment