Let talk about the inconstence of our penal law but not in this case relating to aged woman to get married with young man who is already at the age of majority. Their case may be can be related to sexual harrassment and not rape. But in real fact the law of rape is discrimanative which need the other side of coin.
It is becoming imperative that Tanzania should now consider the need to come up with legal reforms in the offence of rape. The existing definition of rape in our laws is not sustainable in today's world of feminism, sexual equality, and rising female aggressiveness. To my mind, rape goes beyond just penetration; and that it should have more to do with consent rather than penetration without consent.
Article 13(1) of the United Republic of Tanzania Constitution outlaws discrimination: It states;
All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination, to protection and equality before the law
Section 130(1), (2), (3) and (4) of Penal Code women are exempt. This is a statutory burden contemplated by the anti-discrimination clause. And by excluding women as aforesaid, the Penal Code grants them a statutory benefit not available to men, thus again violating the Constitution.
Article 64(5) of the United Republic of Tanzania Constitution elevates the Constitution above all other law: Being inconsistent with article 64(5) of the Constitution, section 130(1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Penal Code is voided to the extent of that inconsistency, that is, to the extent of its discriminatory repercussions against men. Article 64(5) of the Constitution thus compels a re-reading of section 130(1), (2), (3), and (4) of the Penal Code to incorporate female-on-male, or female rape.
Female-on-male rape is widely, but incorrectly, considered impossible because male arousal is thought to be always voluntary, whereas it is more often involuntary. Presuming without conceding that arousal implies volition and thus negates rape, what about artificial arousal? A woman can use date rape drugs, or crushed Viagra secreted into a man's beer, to induce the hardness factor and finally have sex with him.
A related point is that the law of rape does not even require penile turgidity. Unlike consummation in matrimonial law which requires meaningful penetration only attainable by a stiff penis, in criminal law rape is complete upon the slightest penetration'. The flimsiest contact will qualify in the rape context. A flaccid penis can make such contact. The jurisprudential logic is that the law is aimed at preventing sexual assaults, the mischief against which it is directed. If a woman forces or tricks or drugs a man into that degree of contact, she has raped him.
Finally, sex and therefore rape, need not entail penile penetration of the vagina. So if a woman, by fear, force or fraud, has oral sex with a man, she has raped that man.
Our legal system must grapple with the changing face of human sexuality.
It should change to accord with international criminal law were a woman can rape a man the good example in the case of Pauline Nyiramasuhuko ICTR decision
sheria ya makosa ya ubakaji hakuna sehemu inayomtaja mwanaume kubakwa! Kwa sababu sheria zinatungwa na wabunge basi ni vyema wizara ya jinsia na watoto kwa kuanzia huyu kijana wa miaka 26 itutamke rasmi kuwa na wanaume tunabakwa na wamama