Tanzania High Court Dismisses MP Mpina’s Sugar Import Suit; Vows Swift Appeal Battle

By Adonis Byemelwa

The High Court in Dar es Salaam, through Judge Anold John Kirekiano, has dismissed a constitutional petition filed by Kisesa MP Luhaga Mpina (CCM) against the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Finance, and seven other respondents, including state institutions and private companies.

In the ruling delivered yesterday, 25th October 2024, Judge Kirekiano held that the matter, raised as a constitutional issue, was instead suited for a judicial review proceeding rather than a constitutional petition, thus barring it from further proceedings on constitutional grounds.

Mpina, through Constitutional Petition No. 18383 of 2024, challenged the legality of decisions made by the Ministry of Agriculture to allow non-producing companies to import sugar through the Sugar Board of Tanzania, which he claimed violates the governing laws for sugar importation.

He further alleged that the Finance Ministry’s decision to permit the Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) to exempt certain importers from paying taxes on imported sugar has resulted in substantial financial losses to the state, which he pegged at over Sh 1.548 billion.
The lawmaker also implicated private companies and the TRA Commissioner for accepting and implementing the tax exemptions, asserting that these actions directly contravened public interest by granting undue advantage to private importers at the expense of local producers.

The respondents—among them the Sugar Board of Tanzania, Itel East Africa Limited, and Zenj General Merchandise, as well as the TRA and the Attorney General—filed preliminary objections, urging the court to dismiss the petition on procedural grounds before addressing its substantive claims.

In his ruling, Judge Kirekiano sided with the objections, explaining that, while Mpina’s allegations could suggest administrative or legal violations by public officials, not all infractions meet the threshold for a constitutional petition. Judge Kirekiano stated that, under Section 8(2) of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act (Bradea), a constitutional petition must be a last resort only when no other legal avenues are available to the complainant. In this case, he advised that a judicial review proceeding was the appropriate remedy, as it could adequately address the alleged grievances without requiring constitutional interpretation.

“By law, the actions claimed to breach administrative procedures or laws do not necessarily constitute a violation of constitutional rights,” Judge Kirekiano said. “The court finds that any grievance concerning alleged statutory breaches by public officials, even if indirectly connected to constitutional concerns, should first be addressed through judicial review as per Section 8(2) of Bradea.” As a result, he ordered that the petition be struck out without costs, citing that the case involved issues of public interest.

Outside the courtroom, Mpina voiced his frustration with the ruling, stating his intent to appeal. He argued that the tax exemptions issued by the TRA, under the Finance Minister’s directive, have led to an alarming Sh 1.5 trillion revenue loss for the government, and that focusing on procedural technicalities overlooked the larger issues of transparency and accountability. "It is disheartening to witness government attorneys evading the core issue of protecting public resources and opting to hide behind procedural shields," Mpina said, expressing deep disappointment.

He added that even President Samia Suluhu Hassan recently demonstrated her concerns about the mishandling of public funds by establishing the Planning Commission, a task force dedicated to investigating fiscal mismanagement. “The President’s initiative shows that state resources are being misused without accountability. Our public attorneys should be supporting this effort rather than undermining it by focusing on procedural defenses instead of championing the nation’s interest,” he said.

Mpina, who holds that his parliamentary mandate extends to holding the government accountable on behalf of the Tanzanian people, emphasized that his actions stem from his responsibility, not personal gain. “No lawmaker should be deterred from voicing legitimate concerns out of fear of political reprisal or being removed from office,” he stated, highlighting the importance of parliamentarians’ independence in upholding their oversight role.

Edson Kilatu, Mpina’s lawyer, expressed disappointment with the court’s decision, noting that the ruling sets a restrictive precedent for cases with similar public interest elements. He mentioned that an appeal is being prepared to seek clarity on the procedural issue and to argue for judicial consideration of the substantive issues at hand.

“We respect the court’s decision but disagree with it. We firmly believe that a constitutional petition was justified, as it was grounded in both public interest and statutory enforcement,” Kilatu remarked.
Kilatu also highlighted the need for harmonizing the interpretation of Articles 100 and 107A of the Constitution to avoid conflicts over legislative and judicial oversight. He referenced past landmark cases, such as the 1994 Amani Kaburu case, where the Court of Appeal ruled against the National Electoral Commission under Judge Francis Nyalali. According to Kilatu, this precedent underlines the judiciary’s role in intervening when the law’s application adversely affects public welfare.

State attorney Hang Chang’a, welcomed the court’s ruling, stating that procedural compliance is essential in matters of law. “This case should serve as a reminder that legal proceedings must follow proper channels to avoid burdening the court with improperly filed cases,” he asserted.

In response, Kilatu countered that judicial review remains a viable legal pathway, but the appeal would clarify procedural misinterpretations and ensure judicial oversight where critical to the national interest. “Our goal in pursuing the appeal is to ensure that Tanzanians can depend on the judicial system to address pressing issues, especially those related to governance and misuse of public funds,” he affirmed.

Behold, the Kisesa MP argued that the sugar import exemptions are undercutting the domestic market and negatively impacting local farmers, who struggle to compete with cheaper imported sugar.

"The local sugar sector is being compromised, and those responsible for this breach of sugar importation laws are doing so for their interests, not the country's," Mpina contended emphasizing that the appeal would set a critical precedent to address what he perceives as the government’s failure to safeguard the nation’s economic welfare through transparent and lawful practices.