Petitioner says the decision to appeal the ruling suggests that the legal battle is far from over. Photo: Courtesy
Court Ruling Ignites New Fight for Human Rights and Democracy in Tanzania
By Adonis Byemelwa
The High Court of Tanzania on October 24, 2024, issued a landmark decision in a constitutional case involving Luhaga Joelson Mpina, Member of Parliament for Kisesa, against the Tanzanian National Assembly.
This case not only put Mpina’s parliamentary suspension under scrutiny but also tested the legal boundaries of parliamentary privilege, individual rights, and judicial oversight.
The case traces back to June 2024, when Mpina publicly accused the Minister of Agriculture of misinforming Parliament and the public about a sugar deficit of 60,000 metric tons for the years 2022-2023.
During the minister’s budget presentation, Mpina alleged that the statements were misleading and deceptive, casting doubt on government transparency. In response, the Speaker required Mpina to provide evidence of his claims by June 14, which he did. However, Mpina also took his allegations to the media, disclosing the evidence he had provided to the Speaker, which led to further consequences.
The parliamentary disciplinary committee, Kamati ya Haki, Maadili, na Madaraka ya Bunge, was assigned to determine whether Mpina’s media disclosures breached parliamentary codes and reflected insubordination.
The committee ultimately found Mpina’s actions improper and suspended him from fifteen parliamentary sessions. Disputing the decision, Mpina argued it was a politically motivated move that curtailed his right to represent his constituents and limited public access to vital information.
He filed a constitutional petition seeking the reversal of his suspension, arguing it violated Tanzania’s 1977 Constitution. Mpina contended that the suspension infringed upon Article 66(1)(a) of the Constitution, which protects citizens’ rights to parliamentary representation, and Section 5(1) of the Access to Information Act, ensuring citizens’ right to know.
Moreover, Mpina claimed that his suspension was issued without due process, and argued that the Speaker had failed to follow established protocols as outlined in the Parliamentary Standing Orders. In particular, he argued that his right to a fair hearing was overlooked and that the decision lacked a formal resolution as required by the Standing Orders. As part of his petition, Mpina sought a declaration that the suspension was unconstitutional, null, and void, alongside demands for reinstatement and compensation for the period he was barred from Parliament.
Representing the National Assembly, the government’s senior attorneys raised procedural objections to Mpina’s petition. The respondents presented several key points, asserting that the High Court lacked jurisdiction over parliamentary actions.
Citing Article 100 of the Constitution and Section 5 of the Parliamentary Immunities, Powers, and Privileges Act, they argued that parliamentary proceedings and disciplinary actions fall solely within the National Assembly’s domain, exempt from judicial review.
They also contended that Mpina had alternative remedies within the parliamentary framework and should have appealed directly to the Speaker before filing a constitutional petition. Additionally, they argued that the Minister of Agriculture, named in Mpina’s suit, had no direct involvement in the disciplinary action and thus was improperly included as a respondent.
This legal dispute quickly attracted attention, given its potential implications for the future of parliamentary and judicial relations. The respondents’ lead attorney, Principal State Attorney Mr. Hangi Chang’a, emphasized that allowing courts to interfere with parliamentary decisions would erode legislative independence and weaken the separation of powers.
Citing the doctrine of parliamentary privilege enshrined in Article 100, Chang’a argued that Parliament’s decisions on internal matters, including discipline, should remain free from judicial review unless it overstepped constitutional boundaries. Chang’a claimed that this parliamentary autonomy is fundamental to Tanzania’s system of checks and balances.
Countering these arguments, Mpina’s legal team, led by Mr. John Seka, contended that the High Court had a constitutional responsibility to address grievances when legislative actions allegedly infringe on citizens’ rights.
Quoting Article 108(2) of the Constitution, Seka argued that the court must uphold justice, especially when Parliament’s actions potentially violate constitutional rights. He emphasized that the immunity afforded to Parliament was never intended to shield it from accountability, especially when its actions infringe upon individual rights and democratic principles. He argued that, by publicly sharing his evidence, Mpina was exercising his constitutional right to freedom of speech, a right that should not be curtailed by Parliament alone.
After considering the arguments, Justice A.A. Mbagwa upheld the preliminary objections, ruling that the High Court lacked jurisdiction over the matter. Justice Mbagwa leaned on legal precedents affirming parliamentary privilege, particularly referencing the case of Augustine Lyatonga Mrema vs Speaker of the National Assembly and the Attorney General, where the court found that judicial review of parliamentary procedures is restricted to cases where Parliament acts beyond its constitutional powers or in defiance of the Constitution. Justice Mbagwa concluded that Parliament’s actions fell squarely within its jurisdiction and did not violate any constitutional provisions.
On the issue of alternative remedies, the court agreed with the respondents, stating that Mpina could have sought redress through the parliamentary framework under Order 5(4) before approaching the court.
Justice Mbagwa emphasized that courts should serve as a last resort only when no other remedy is available within the relevant institution. The court also dismissed the petition due to the misjoinder of the second respondent, ruling that the Minister of Agriculture’s inclusion was unwarranted since he was uninvolved in the decision to suspend Mpina.
Outside the courtroom, Mpina remained defiant. Speaking to reporters, he announced his intention to appeal the decision, underscoring that the case went beyond his rights. “This is not just about me. This is about the rights of all Tanzanians and our democracy,” Mpina asserted.
He accused Parliament of using his suspension as a tool to stifle dissent and vowed to pursue further legal action, declaring that “the doors of justice are still open.”
On the opposite side, Chang’a welcomed the court’s decision as a victory for parliamentary autonomy and the rule of law. “This ruling is a strong affirmation of the separation of powers,” Chang’a said, noting that it enables Parliament to operate independently without external interference. The decision, he argued, protects the integrity of parliamentary processes, allowing Parliament to maintain internal discipline free from judicial encroachment.
The implications of this case resonate beyond the courtroom, carrying potential consequences for Tanzania’s political and constitutional landscape. The court’s ruling serves as a robust affirmation of the separation of powers doctrine and sets a strong precedent that underscores Parliament’s autonomy in governing its internal affairs.
By asserting that parliamentary decisions related to internal discipline cannot be subject to judicial review, the court has defined clear boundaries for future legal challenges involving parliamentary privilege.
However, Mpina’s decision to appeal the ruling suggests that the legal battle is far from over. If the case progresses to a higher court, it could establish new interpretations of Tanzania’s constitutional rights and potentially reshape the interaction between the legislative and judicial branches. The outcome could influence how Tanzanians understand their democratic rights, particularly the balance between parliamentary privilege and individual freedoms.
This case thus serves as a critical test of judicial and parliamentary boundaries in Tanzania. As the appeal process unfolds, it may continue to illuminate the challenges of protecting individual rights while preserving institutional independence—a balance essential to any democratic society.
Bottom of Form
