By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

is without prejudice to any other remedy which may be available to him, Thismeans that the complainant of a violation of a basic human right is free to seedredress under Article 30 (3) although he could equally well have sought relief byway of mandamus or certiorari. Therefore if the appellants in this case chosethe seed remedy, as they did under Article 30 (3) they were exercising theirconstitutional right as to which procedure to follow in seeing redress. There canbe no justification whatsoever for saying that because Section 6 presents anobstacle, the complainant of a violation of this basic human right should berestricted to other forms of remedy. A complainant should be free to choose thebest method legally open to him to prosecute his cause.In the instant case it was open to th3e appellants to proceed for redress underArticle 30 (3) of the constitution. Section 6 which denies them this constitutionalright cannot be said to be valid merely because the appellants could haveremedy elsewhere; that would amount to going round the problem instead ofstriking at it directly against the Constitution itself.Mrs. Sumari also claimed that Section 6 was justified on ground of publicinterests. By this we understood her to say that the Section was saved by Article30 (2) of the Constitution which permits derogation from basic human rights incertain circumstance She contended that Section 6 was necessary because itenabled the Government to regulate and control the suits which are broughtagainst it She was of the decided view that if Section 6 were to be removed, thatwould open flood gates of frivolous and vexations litigation which wouldembarrass the Government and take up much of its time that could be betterspent on matters connected with the development and welfare of the members ofthe society generally. In this regard the learned State Attorney urged that theGovernment and the individual are not and cannot be, equal because theGovernment has the responsibility of looking after the wider interests of thesociety at large.On the material before us we have no difficulty in holding that Section 6 violatedthe basic human right of unimpeded access to the court to have one’s grievanceheard and determined there. That right is guaranteed under Article 13 (3) and 30(3) of the country’s constitution reproduced earlier in this judgment. Indeed theRepublic did not seriously dispute this ./ the main point of contention by theRepublic was that the violation did not invalidate Section 6 (the requirement ofconsent to sue) because where such consent was withheld, the the victim wasnot without remedy he could apply for orders of mandamus or certiorariHowever, we have rejected that argument for the reason given earlier in thisjudgment.288