Tanzanian High Court Strikes Down Mpina’s Petition, Confirms Parliamentary Suspension

By Adonis Byemelwa

In a strike-out ruling delivered on October 24, 2024, the Tanzanian High Court, Dar es Salaam sub-registry dismissed the constitutional petition filed by Luhaga Mpina, Kisesa Member of Parliament effectively ending his legal challenge against the Speaker of the National Assembly, Tulia Ackson, and others.

The case, which had experienced several delays, marked a significant setback for Mpina, whose suspension from Parliament earlier this year sparked a fierce legal and political battle. The High Court’s ruling came as a blow to Mpina's efforts to contest the disciplinary actions taken against him by Parliament.

Mpina, a seasoned MP from the ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) party, was suspended from attending 15 parliamentary sessions following allegations he made against the Minister of Agriculture, Hussein Bashe. Mpina accused Bashe of unlawfully issuing permits for the importation of sugar, a claim that triggered a formal investigation by Parliament’s Ethics Committee.

The committee found the allegations unsubstantiated and recommended Mpina’s suspension for misconduct, a decision that was subsequently ratified by the National Assembly. Mpina responded by filing a petition in court, arguing that his suspension violated his constitutional rights, particularly his right to a fair hearing.

In his petition, Mpina asserted that the disciplinary measures imposed on him were procedurally flawed and infringed upon his constitutional right to freedom of expression under Article 100, which protects Members of Parliament from being penalized for statements made during parliamentary debates. He claimed that he had not been given an adequate opportunity to defend himself before the Ethics Committee and that the decision to suspend him was unjust and unconstitutional.

Mpina’s legal team, led by attorneys; Ferdinand Makole and Edson Kilatu anchored their arguments on Article 107A (1) of the Tanzanian Constitution. This article empowers the judiciary to overrule any decisions by Parliament that violate constitutional principles.

Makole argued that the court had a duty to intervene, emphasizing that no branch of government, including Parliament, is above the law. The legal team stressed that Parliament's disciplinary procedures should be subject to judicial review when they infringe upon fundamental rights and freedoms.

The government’s legal representatives, defending the Speaker and other respondents, raised several objections, arguing that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. They contended that the disciplinary action against Mpina fell within the internal purview of Parliament and was governed by parliamentary rules.

Citing Article 108(2) of the Constitution, the government lawyers pointed out that the High Court's jurisdiction is limited to matters explicitly outlined in the Constitution or other laws, and that the Constitution grants Parliament the authority to manage its internal affairs, including disciplining its members. As such, they argued, Mpina’s case should not have been brought before the court.

The state attorneys also argued that Mpina had not exhausted the available internal remedies before resorting to legal action. They noted that Mpina could have filed a formal written complaint with the Speaker of the National Assembly or sought a judicial review through Parliament’s internal mechanisms.

Moreover, the defense emphasized that Parliament, as an independent arm of government, has the autonomy to manage its internal affairs and discipline its members without interference from the judiciary.

During the ruling, which lasted over two hours, the presiding judge carefully examined the arguments presented by both sides. The judge agreed with the government’s objections, ruling that Parliament had acted within its constitutional mandate when it suspended Mpina.

The judge also found that Mpina had failed to follow the proper procedures for addressing his grievances within the parliamentary system, dismissing the case on procedural grounds. The court reaffirmed the importance of respecting the separation of powers between Parliament and the judiciary, stating that judicial intervention in parliamentary matters should only occur when there is a clear violation of the Constitution.

The judge further referenced Article 30(1) of the Constitution, which stipulates that the exercise of individual rights and freedoms must not infringe on the rights of others or the broader public interest. In this context, the judge agreed with the government’s argument that Parliament’s disciplinary action was taken to maintain order and uphold the integrity of the institution. As such, the court concluded that the suspension did not constitute a violation of Mpina’s constitutional rights.

Mpina’s legal team expressed disappointment with the ruling. Attorney Ferdinand Makole noted with dismay that the court focused more on procedural issues rather than addressing the substantive constitutional questions raised in the petition.

He argued that the case was not merely about procedural errors, but about the broader implications for the rights of all Tanzanians and the role of Parliament in upholding democratic principles. Makole also referenced the 1998 case of Augustine Mrema, a former MP for Vunjo, who successfully challenged his suspension from Parliament.

In that case, the court ruled that Parliament could not act in a manner that violated constitutional principles, and Makole argued that the same precedent should have applied to Mpina’s case. He indicated that Mpina’s legal team would carefully review the judgment before deciding on their next steps.

Outside the courtroom, Mpina himself remained defiant. Speaking to reporters, he announced his intention to appeal the decision, declaring that the case was about more than just his individual rights.

"This is not just about me. This is about the rights of all Tanzanians and our democracy," Mpina stated. He accused Parliament of using his suspension as a political tool to silence his dissent and vowed to continue his legal battle, insisting that "the doors of justice are still open."

On the other side, Hang Chang’a, the lead lawyer for the respondents, welcomed the ruling as a victory for parliamentary autonomy and the rule of law. He praised the court’s decision to uphold Parliament’s authority to manage its internal processes without judicial interference.

"This ruling is a strong affirmation of the separation of powers," Chang’a said, "and it ensures that Parliament can continue to operate independently, free from external pressure."

The legal battle, however, appears far from over. With Mpina signaling his intent to appeal, the case could potentially set a new precedent in Tanzania’s constitutional and political landscape.
It raises broader questions about the balance between parliamentary privilege and individual rights, particularly concerning the extent to which Parliament’s internal decisions can be challenged in court. The upcoming appeal is likely to delve deeper into these issues, testing the limits of parliamentary immunity and the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional freedoms.

As the case moves to the appellate courts, it is expected to spark further debate on the protection of MPs’ rights under Article 100, which guarantees freedom of speech in Parliament.

Today’s ruling suggests that while MPs enjoy this freedom, it is not absolute and can be curtailed by internal disciplinary measures aimed at preserving the integrity and order of Parliament. The outcome of the appeal could have lasting implications for how Tanzanian MPs navigate the delicate balance between their rights and the rules governing parliamentary conduct.