instance domestic court which is contrary to the command
of the Charter,
Protocol and Rules of the Court.”
34. Concerning the application for review, the Applicant avers that according to
the Court’s judgment of 3 June 2016, in the matter of Mohamed Abubakari
v United Republic of Tanzania, it“... is an extraordinary remedy because the
granting of leave by the Court of Appeal of Tanzania to lodge an Application
for Review of its decision is based on specific grounds and is granted at the
discretion
of the Court...” The Applicant did not submit on the issue of
constitutional petition as maintained by the Respondent State.
aK
35. The Court notes that the issue for determination is whether the Applicant
exhausted local remedies as required under Rule 40 of the Rules. On this
issue, the Court recalls that the local remedies that must be exhausted are
judicial remedies.’ In the instant case, the Court notes that the Applicant
went up to the Court of Appeal, the highest court in the Respondent State
which delivered its judgment on the Applicant's case on 24 February 2012.
36.In relation to the filing of the constitutional petition and an application for
review, the Court has held that regarding the Respondent State, these are
extraordinary remedies which the Applicant is not required to exhaust.®
37.Concerning
the allegation that the Respondent State failed to grant the
Applicant legal assistance, the Court has previously stated that this is part
of the bundle of rights relating to fair trial.? The judicial authorities of the
Respondent State therefore had the opportunity to address this matter in
7 Tanganyika Law Society, the Legal and Human Rights Centre v United Republic of Tanzania and
Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila v United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2013) 1 AfCLR 34, § 82.1.
8 See Alex Thomas v Tanzania (merits), § 65; Mohamed Abubakari v Tanzania (merits), §§ 66 — 70;
Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and 9 Others v United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2016) 1 AfCLR 507, §
95; Christopher Jonas v United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2017) 2 AfCLR 101, § 44
2 See Alex Thomas v Tanzania (merits), § 60. See also Minani Evarist v Tanzania (merits) 2018) 2
AfCLR 402, § 35; Thobias Mang’ara Mango and Shukurani Masegenya Mango v Tanzania (merits),
(2018) 2 AfCLR 314, § 46; and Diocles William v United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2018) 2 AfCLR
11