: 00 r ffi 4 necessary and compulsory remedy. However, and unlike the treatment meted out on these five Applicants, the Court refrains from sanctioning the first and seventh Applicants for failure to bring the same action for unconstitutionality. W1h regard to these two Applicants, the Court reiterates its traditional position. lt recalls " reiterates its position that the remedy of a constitutional petition, as framed in the Respondent state's legal system, is an extraordinary remedy that an applicant need not exhaust before approaching the court. For this reason, the court holds that the First Applicant and Seventh Applicant need not have filed a constitutional petition before approaching the Court." 16. 20. The underlying reason for this differential treatment of the Applicants seems to be the consequence of what we have developed above, namely the combination of elements of a different nature concerning the merits of the case on the one hand and the procedure on the other hand. 21.For these reasons, I have voted against this judgment I Arusha, 26 September 2019. Judge Rafai Ben Achour qS St N lJ OFJ 16 Paragraph 54 of the judgment 6 D R l.ll tt