Dalton elijah
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 19, 2022
- 795
- 1,848
This could be one of the most exceptional and Exparte injunctions ever issued in the history of countries that follow the Common Law system.
Ordinarily, an injunction is granted to preserve the existing state of affairs (status quo) in order to prevent further harm until justice is fully heard and determined.
But the injunction being applied in this case seems not only to disrupt the status quo, but to completely erase the legitimacy, existence, and identity of a legally registered political institution.
We must ask ourselves: What does the distribution of Zanzibar’s expenditure have to do with a meeting of party members in BUSOKELO, TANDAHIMBA, LONGIDO, or SERENGETI?
Is it not true that a constituency is measured based on the national budget allocation—not on emotional boundaries or political context?
Is it not a legal distortion to prohibit or interfere with legitimate political party meetings using the pretext of Zanzibar–Tanganyika budget allocations, effectively spreading political sentiments through the muscle of the judiciary?
Isn’t it even more troubling that a case filed under a CERTIFICATE OF URGENCY, which legally aims at swift action to protect rights, has turned into a circus platform requiring a “detailed clarification” to explain the very injunction in question?
Where did this time to draft a detailed explanation come from if there was a real urgency? Did the urgency end after the unilateral order was granted?
Could we be facing a legal deadlock and the suppression of democracy and constitutional rights through the very courts meant to uphold them?
How can one issue an order to suspend all activities of a political party during an election period—yet not suspend election-related activities themselves?
Is this a historic attempt to overturn the principles of justice, to use the judiciary as a political weapon, and to destroy the independence of political parties?
I AM ASKING, AND YOU TOO SHOULD ASK YOURSELF, SO THAT WE MAY QUESTION TOGETHER.
Ordinarily, an injunction is granted to preserve the existing state of affairs (status quo) in order to prevent further harm until justice is fully heard and determined.
But the injunction being applied in this case seems not only to disrupt the status quo, but to completely erase the legitimacy, existence, and identity of a legally registered political institution.
We must ask ourselves: What does the distribution of Zanzibar’s expenditure have to do with a meeting of party members in BUSOKELO, TANDAHIMBA, LONGIDO, or SERENGETI?
Is it not true that a constituency is measured based on the national budget allocation—not on emotional boundaries or political context?
Is it not a legal distortion to prohibit or interfere with legitimate political party meetings using the pretext of Zanzibar–Tanganyika budget allocations, effectively spreading political sentiments through the muscle of the judiciary?
Isn’t it even more troubling that a case filed under a CERTIFICATE OF URGENCY, which legally aims at swift action to protect rights, has turned into a circus platform requiring a “detailed clarification” to explain the very injunction in question?
Where did this time to draft a detailed explanation come from if there was a real urgency? Did the urgency end after the unilateral order was granted?
Could we be facing a legal deadlock and the suppression of democracy and constitutional rights through the very courts meant to uphold them?
How can one issue an order to suspend all activities of a political party during an election period—yet not suspend election-related activities themselves?
Is this a historic attempt to overturn the principles of justice, to use the judiciary as a political weapon, and to destroy the independence of political parties?
I AM ASKING, AND YOU TOO SHOULD ASK YOURSELF, SO THAT WE MAY QUESTION TOGETHER.
