Previous 6 / 29 Next

d) Enhancing the citizens right to be informed at all times of various important events of life and activities of the people and also of issues of importance to the society - Article 18[2] In paragraph 4 of the affidavit in support of the petition, the Petitioner averred that the Government through the office of the Chief Government Spokesperson uses Clubhouse to engage with other Tanzanians on various programmes and projects implemented by the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania. However, the Respondents have denied that the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania maintains a Clubhouse page as one of its official communication Platforms. They underlined the official communication platform. The Petitioner rejoined by attaching additional evidence in his Rejoinder Affidavit by way of Annexure CH 01 and CH 02. What do these annextures contain? Annexture CH1 is the Press Release "Taarifa kwa Vyombo vya Habari by Mr Gerson Msigwa, the then Chief Government Spokesperson dated 25th February 2023 informing the public that his Office will start using Clubhouse to engage the public through the said forum via channel "Maelezo News" and forum called "Msemaji Mkuu wa Serikali." Besides that, the Press Release, the Petitioner attached other photographs of Ministers with captions on what they will discuss in the Clubhouse. The latter's insignia is seen in every photo. It was the Respondents' submission that the said annexture CH01 was just information to the public that it will engage the public into various debates and discussions through the Clubhouse. The said annexture was never a notice to the public that the Clubhouse platform would be an official platform for Government Communications. The government was merely trying to reach out to wider society. But what stunned the Petitioner was the clear rejection of the Respondents' witness Dr Philip Haule Filikunjombe in paragraph 4 of his counter affidavit that the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania has official platforms for communicating with the public for which Clubhouse is not part of them. Whether this was a blatant lie or not we looked closely at 6

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Paul Kisabo vs Minister of Information, Communication and Information Technology, Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority, and Attorney General 2024

Case Law

Country

Tanzania

Country Location

Latitude: -6.422658237654706

Longitude: 36.0716826891688

Country Location (linked Case Law): Tanzania

Decision Date: 3 de mai. de 2024

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Motion Granted

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Blocking or Filtering of Information

Keywords

Constitution
Electronic Communications
Freedom of Expression

Court Name: IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZNIA (MAIN REGISTRY)

Case Number: MISC. CIVIL CAUSE NO. 27860 OF 2024

Case Summary: Facts Paul Kisabo, the petitioner, filed a case against the Minister of Information, Communication and Information Technology, the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority (TCRA), and the Attorney General. Kisabo challenged the restriction of access to the social audio platform Clubhouse in Tanzania, claiming it infringed his constitutional rights under the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, 1977, and various international treaties. He argued that the restrictions violated his rights to freedom of opinion, expression, and access to information.

Issue Whether the government of Tanzania uses Clubhouse as an official communication platform. Whether access to Clubhouse is a fundamental right of the petitioner. Whether the TCRA has restricted access to Clubhouse in Tanzania. Whether such restrictions, if any, are justifiable. Rule Article 18(1) and 18(2) of the Tanzanian Constitution: Guarantees freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to seek, receive, and impart information. International Treaties: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) Article 19, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 19, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) Article 9, which provide similar protections. Evidence Act, Section 110: Burden of proof lies on the party asserting a claim. Analysis Use of Clubhouse by Government: The court found that the Tanzanian government, through the Chief Government Spokesperson, used Clubhouse to communicate with the public. However, there was no formal sanctioning of Clubhouse as an official communication platform.

Fundamental Right to Access Clubhouse: The court affirmed that access to Clubhouse is part of the fundamental rights to seek, receive, and impart information under Article 18 of the Constitution. These rights are also protected by international treaties ratified by Tanzania. However, these rights are not absolute and can be subject to lawful restrictions.

Restrictions by TCRA: The petitioner argued that TCRA had restricted access to Clubhouse, which was supported by a report from the Open Observatory of Network Interference (OONI). However, the court found the OONI report inconclusive and insufficient to prove that TCRA had blocked Clubhouse. The report's credibility was questioned due to lack of direct evidence from its makers.

Justifiability of Restrictions: The court reiterated that any restriction on fundamental rights must be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary and proportionate. However, since the petitioner failed to prove the restrictions, the issue of justifiability was rendered moot.

Conclusion The court concluded that while the petitioner had a fundamental right to access Clubhouse, he failed to prove that TCRA or any government agency had restricted access to the platform. Therefore, the petition was dismissed for lack of evidence.

Case Significance: Affirmation of Digital Rights: The case reinforces the recognition of digital rights as part of fundamental human rights, aligning with international standards.

Burden of Proof in Constitutional Petitions: The decision underscores the importance of concrete evidence in proving allegations of rights violations in constitutional petitions.

Regulatory Oversight: It highlights the role of regulatory authorities like TCRA in managing digital platforms and the need for clear evidence when challenging such regulatory actions.

Related Law

Source Name and URL: tanzlii.org

Collection

CIPIT

Date Updated: 9 de jul. de 2024

Primary Documents

KISABO_v_MICIT_TCRA_AND_AG_-_JUDGMENT_-_FINAL_PDF_NEW.pdf
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Paul Kisabo vs Minister of Information, Communication and Information Technology, Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority, and Attorney General 2024

Primary Documents

Notifications