LANDMARK RULING BARS COUNCIL DIRECTORS FROM POLL SUPERVISION

 BY GRACE MACHA IN ARUSHA

The African Court on Human and People's Rights (AfCHPR) has barred the council directors from supervising elections.

The legal facility said hiring the local government officials for the exercise contradicted the democratic principles.

The government was directed to amend laws so that  they prohibited the council directors from directly handling the elections.

The ruling also ordered the government to submit to its report on the implementation of the desired amendment within 12 months.

Under the current system, the city, municipal, town and district directors across the country are also the returning officers during the General Election.

The case was filed by Bob Wangwe on behalf of Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC), being the second to be filed on the same.

The application objected to another ruling by the High Court of Tanzania which upheld the decision for the council directors to supervise the polls.

The High Court maintained that since the state officials in question took oath, they could not be accused of siding with the government of the day.

Political analysts described the ruling at the Arusha-based Court as a breakthrough in bringing more transparency to the election process in the country.

This is the second landmark made by the 25 year old  Court in a case filed by nationals of Tanzania, the host nation.

The earlier one was  filed by the late  Rev Christopher Mtikila seeking constitutional change that would allow an independent candidate for a presidential race.The Court ruled in his favour.

The applicants allege that the Respondent State has violated their right to participate in the government because of the drawback.

That is contrary to Article 13(1) of the Charter that established AfCHPR and also their right to equality before the law and to equal protection of the law contrary to Article 3 of the Charter.

The Applicants submit that section 6(1) of the national election agency violates the Charter because the Director of Elections is appointed by the President who is the Chairperson of the ruling party and also among the contestants in elections.

The manner of appointing the Director of Elections, the applicants contend,“raises the question of impartiality, independence of Commission and the credibility of the elections process and results”.

The applicants further point out that the President “gets recommendations from the Commission for the appointment of the Director of Elections while the Commission itself was in the first place appointed by the President himself, who is also a potential candidate in the elections.

They submit that section 6(1) lacks the criteria for the appointment of the Director of Elections and thus, makes it wide, broad and vague, and subject to abuse.