By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

of Dodoma Zone Mr. Mwambe duly instructed by the Attorney-General made assimilar application to have the Government joined as a co-defendant which wasalso rejected. The court advised the parties that it would be beneficial to thegovernment only to provide necessary legal representation to that governmentofficial. Finally the government was joined after proper third party NoticeProcedures were complied with.Immediately after being joined as a co-defendant, the government raised anobjection to the effect that the suit was incompetent for want of Ministerialconsent under the Government Proceedings Act. 1967 The plaintiff replied byarguing that the Act was unconstitutional and so void for the requirement of aministerial consent was inconsistent with the right to have free access to thecourts as enshrined in the Constitution under the provision of Articles 13(3);13(1) (6) (a) and 30 (3) which provide inter alia, that the Civil rights, obligationand interests of every persons shall be protected and determined by competentcourts of law; all persons are entitled to the protection of the law; all person areentitled to a fair hearing; and thus if one feels aggrieved one may instituteproceedings for relief to the High Court.The Attorney-General, for the government, submitted that the requirement of awritten permission was a mere procedural matter which did not take away theright to sue the government, and in the alternative, if it so infringes, the Act is inthe Public interest thus saved by the derogation clause in20 Act No. 33 of 199421 Act No. 30 of 199422 High Court of Tanzania at Dodoma. Civil Case No. 22 1992 ( Unreported).Ruling delivered in chambers at Dodoma in the presence of the parties on 11 thDecember, 1992.23 Act No. 16 of 1967.Human Rights in TanzaniaArticle 30 (1) and (2) of the Constitution. The issue, then, was whether the rightto have a free access to the courts for a remedy is infringed by the mere fact thatSection 6 of the Act requires a ministerial fiat for one to file a suit in court againstthe government.The plaintiff retorted that the ministerial fiat was not a mere procedural matter butsubstantively restricts the right to free access to the courts; and the Act was notin the public interest in that there was no need of having a fiat because, with allattorneys, the government would be heard and defend itself. Also, the Act wascontrary to openness and transparency desired in a multiparty democracy.The Court held that the Constitution recognizes the right of an individual to havea free access to the Courts for a remedy; Section 6 of the Government267