Court to hear case on ‘civilian beating’

    Written by FAUSTINE KAPAMA 

   

Prime Minister Mizengo PindaPrime Minister Mizengo Pinda

A HIGH Court panel led by Principal Judge Fakih Jundu is set to hear the objection raised by Attorney General (AG), seeking dismissal of constitutional case challenging statements given in Parliament by Prime Minister Mizengo Pinda over beating civilians.

Other judges in the panel, that sits tomorrow, are Augustine Mwarija and Dr Fauz Twaib. In the objection, the AG has advanced five grounds, alleging that the constitution petition is bad in law for contravening the Constitution of United Republic of Tanzania.

The petition also contravenes Parliamentary Immunities, Powers and Privileges Act. He states that the petition was fatally defective for contravening the provisions under the Civil Procedure Code and the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act.

The AG also argues that the petition is vague, causes embarrassment, is frivolous and vexatious and that it has been lodged in total abuse of the legal process. According to the AG, the petitioners have no locus standi to petition for intervention of the Parliamentary business carried out in the House and that the prayers sought are untenable on account of being contrary to the basic principles of law.

The petitioners in the case which is of its own kind in the country’s judicial history are the Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC) and Tanganyika Law Society (TLS). The petition was filed on August 1, this year, against Mr Pinda and the AG, who are respondents in the matter.

They are challenging as unconstitutional the premier’s statements, directives and orders allegedly allowing law enforcers to use force, beating civilians who violate the law. It is alleged that on June 20, this year, when exercising his duties as Prime Minister of the United Republic of Tanzania, Mr Pinda openly and unconstitutionally gave a directive and ordered the law enforcement officers to beat up anyone defying orders.

They alleged that in administration of criminal law in respect of public tranquility, statements or orders given by high profile public leaders like Mr Pinda were deemed enforceable by law enforcement agents like the police.

“To the petitioners’ understanding, the police would take this as a lawful order from their superior which will be in a form of arbitrary and extrajudicial beating and torture of an otherwise innocent person contrary to the protection provided by the Constitution,” they stated.

According to the petitioners, they were aware of Article 100 (1) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, as amended from time to time and the provision of Section 5 of the Parliamentary Immunities, Powers and Privileges Act.

Such provisions, they stated in the petition document, give powers and immunity to Members of Parliament (MP) and freedom of opinion in the National Assembly and the petitioners have noted that Article 100 (2) subjects all MPs under the constitutional provisions.

The petitioners allege that the statements by the Prime Minister were unconstitutional for they contravened Articles 12, 13, 14, 26, 27 and 30, among others, of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977, as amended.

They claimed further that the position taken by the premier contravened principles of human dignity, equality before the law, promotion of Rule of the Jungle, violation of a right to fair hearing, abuse of power by law enforcers and violation to the right of presumption of innocence.