87. In the circumstances, the Court holds that section 6(1) of the NEA violates Article 13(1) of the Charter in so far as it does not prescribe qualification criteria for persons to be appointed as Director of Elections and that this infringement of the Charter is not a permissible limitation under the terms of Article 27(2) of the Charter. ii. Alleged violation of the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law 88. The Applicants contend that the current system for appointing the Director of Elections violates their rights under Article 3 of the Charter. According to the Applicants: … only individuals qualifying for the appointment as Director of Elections are those who belong to the civil service of the United Republic of Tanzania. This has the effect of leaving out other members and citizens who are no part of the civil service who also have the right to take part in the electoral processes of the State, including being appointed for various positions in electoral bodies. * 89. For its part, the Respondent State argues that “… the right to participate in government is not absolute as it can be legitimately restricted by law.” In support of its argument, the Respondent State cites Article 27(2) of the Charter and the Court’s decision in Tanganyika Law Society and Others v. Tanzania. According to the Respondent State, therefore, “… restrictions as to persons who are eligible for the appointment as Director is reasonable and justifiable. Appointment of a civil servant as Director of Elections is for common interest as it is easy to ascertain his ethical, professional and educational background since public service is governed by wellestablished legal framework.” *** 25