By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

efusal in short the decisions were found always to be palpably arbitrary.Examples are cited in the thesis wherein consent was refused simply becausethe minister thought if the matter went to court a good quainter of damageswould have been awarded by the courts to the claimant on merits. In other casesMr. Wambali found that in many instances the minister reached his manifestlyadverse decision without referring to any supporting legal authorities or basingthem on incorrect point of law. Another valid complaint to be discovered was helength of time taken to deal with the application. It usually takes an unnecessarilylong time. He found that out of the 58 tort claims he studied, only 6 application forconsent were granted by he minister, that is about 10 per cent; and it took theaverage of four years to reach the decision either way. Certainly that is aninordinately very long time to reach decision. Taking into account the fact that theperiod of limitation is three years for torts. The graphic account of Mr. M.K.B.Wambali can also be seen in his paper he presented at the Seminar toCommemorate 25 years of the Faculty of Law, held between 20 th and 25 thOctober 1986 at the University of Dar es salaam titled “the Enforcement of theBill of Rights Against the Government”Others to document the oppression rendered by the requirement of theministerial fist is Dr. Chris Maina Peter, a lecturer at the Faculty of Law of theUniversity of Dar es Salaam in his article “Five Years of the Bill of rights toTanzania Drawing a Balance sheet published in the African journal ofinternational and Comparative Law 49 where he statesThe most conspicuous and frustrating among the rights denied to the citizen isthe right to sue the government. It seems as if the governments has resolved toprotect itself. This protectionist attitude of the government is codified through theGovernment Proceedings Act, 1967. This strategic legislation insulates thegovernment from all claims in a feudalist manner According to this law, anybodywanting to sue the government has first to seek permission is a tussle whichtakes time / In some cases it has taken years to get the holy permit. This is notan accident; it has a meaning. The time factor is intended to wear out theclaimant and force him to settle the matter our of court with the government. Ifhe insets on proceeding with the case, then time will have taken its toll and it islikely that some of the key witnesses will have died, been transferred or simplyforgotten what transpired in relation to the issue being litigated. The legislation isquite irrational The cruelty of this sadism reaches the climax when the applicanthimself dies while waiting for the Attorney-General’s permission to enable him topursue his rights through the courts of law. This happened in the case of ScarionBruno.Others who have made similar adverse remarks against the Governmentproceedings Act. 1967 include prof. Issa G. Shivji in his article State and275