TANZANIA, Mbeya HIGH Court of Tanzania Mbeya Registry has dismissed the constitutional petition lodged by four people who were challenging provisions of the contract and process of ratification of the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between Tanzania and the Emirate of Dubai.
The applicants; Alphonce Lusako, Emmanuel Kalikenya Chengula, Raphael Japhet Ngonde and Frank John Nyalus claimed that the deal, approved by the Parliament of the United Republic of Tanzania, was illegal and unconstitutional.
In the ruling delivered in Mbeya on Thursday, Justice Mustafa Ismail noted: “Since this is a public interest matter, we do not find any justification for granting of costs. We, therefore, make no order as to costs.”
“We entertain no doubt, therefore, that the contention by the petitioners on the alleged violation of the law lacks the spine which would hold it firm and form the basis for a plausible argument,” reads the ruling.
He said what the petitioners have put forward is an allegation that the Emirate of Dubai did not have capacity to contract, the ground being that it was not authorized by the UAE to enter into an agreement with the United Republic of Tanzania.
“Needless to say, in our view, this required a factual account which would prove the lack of capacity of the Emirate of Dubai to contract,” he said.
The petitioners, according to Justice Mustafa Ismail, claimed that the granting of such tender to DWP for Emirate of Dubai is discriminatory and in contravention of the laws of Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Acts (PPPR) Cap 410 of 2011 as amended and other relevant laws as amended time to time.
The petitioners claimed that the respondents’ acts and conducts have undermined Sovereignty and Security of the United Republic of Tanzania in respect of its power to own, manage and control its natural resources for the interest of the United Republic of Tanzania.
However, the jury concluded that: “In the upshot of all this we find this petition barren of fruits. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. Since this is a public interest matter, we do not find any justification for granting of costs. We, therefore, make no order as to costs.”
