Arusha, Tanzania Email: registrar@african-court.org Website: www.african-court.org Telephone: +255-272-510-510 JUDGMENT SUMMARY On their part, the Applicants contended that they were unable to exhaust local remedies, as Article 74(12) of the Respondent State’s Constitution bars anyone from challenging actions of the National Elections Commission (herein after referred to as “NEC”). They further contended that Section 4(2) of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act [CAP. 3 R.E. 2019] (herein after referred to as “BRADEA”), bars those who are not directly affected by the contravention of the provisions of Articles 12 to 29 of the Constitution from challenging these provisions in domestic courts. It was the Applicants’ contention therefore that, since their Application before the African Court was on a public interest basis, they were unable to exhaust local remedies. In addressing the Respondent State’s objections to the admissibility of the Application based on non-exhaustion of local remedies, the Court recalled its jurisprudence that the requirement is to exhaust ordinary judicial remedies that offer a prospect of success; which also have to be available, effective, sufficient, and not unduly prolonged. In applying these principles to the Application, the Court considered the two domestic remedies available to the Applicants, namely: i) challenging the constitutionality of the NEA; and ii) challenging the alleged restrictions under the BRADEA. On challenging the constitutionality of the NEA, the Court considered the Magoti case relied on by the Respondent State where its High Court adjudicated on the voting restrictions imposed on remandees awaiting trial and prisoners, which issues also arise in this Application. The Court observed that both Applicants in the present Application had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the NEA given that Article 26(2) of the Respondent State’s Constitution, provided access to “any person” in furtherance of the protection of the Constitution and the laws of the land. The Court therefore held that the Applicants did not exhaust the remedy of challenging the constitutionality of the NEA; and upheld the Respondent State’s objection in this regard. 4