By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

serious matter and article 26 of it, says it must be guarded andobeyed. And to say that the Government cannot be served with aninjunction process is anachronistic. Going back to the contention,it is uncontestable in my view, that sections (2) and (7) of the BasicRights and Duties Enforcement Act, 1994, as read together withArticle 30 of the Constitution, the Government is an impleadableparty, in the enforcement of human rights as enshrined in Articles12 to 29 of the said Constitution, and considering, that the duty topay obedience to, and Guard the Constitution lies on us all, itfollows that, when the Government’s potential to interfere with, orto transgress upon or continue threatening the violation of suchhuman rights, it is only fair and logical, that the Court uses itsextra-ordinary jurisdiction, to issue temporary injunction, oninterim relief, for the protection of such human rights, asthreatened, till the finalization of the petition. I is my possible tomaintain human dignity, where the fundamental human rights andfreedom, should be beyond the reach of legislative majorities, andexecutive decisions. In my conclusive considered view it is not acry from a wildness, that it should no longer be consideredsacrilege, or heresay, to say once again, that a Court hasjurisdiction to issue temporary injunction against a Government, ifit consider necessary and appropriate for the interests of justice, inthe enforcement of fundamental human rights which are likely tobe enormously weakened, unless injunctive interim reliefs, againstthe Government, which in its vast and complex machinery, in oneway or another, even inadvertently, encroaches on the rights ofcitizens are issued, also see HOME OFFICES CASE (1993) 3 WLR433 at p.456. Mr. Werema will therefore join issues with me, onthis aspect.For issue No.4 basically Mr. Werema has, a significant importfrom para 6(1) of his affidavit, that the court was and this court isseized of the application, for exparte interim injunction, and Isuppose the current application for temporary injunction whenBAWATA, as society, has seized to exist and that its cancellationbefore the injunction order, was issued, rendered the ordernugatory and the current application equally affected. Of courseProf. Shivji countered this at considerable length and I need torepeat what the tow Counsels said at full length. Accurate date,and or history, are hardly capricious, if not fraudulentlymanipulated, and indeed, the record shows that, BAWATA, wascancelled on the 30/6/1997, and such cancellation communicated98