Constitutional litigation and judicial approaches during the bill of rights era in Tanzania

Diverse judicial approaches to constitutional litigation emerged in the wake of the Bill of Rights becoming justifiable in Mainland Tanzania have now become the judges’ major dividing lines between the progressive and conservative; one group seeking to limit the exercise of state power and another defending the same unabated. This study used documentary review and structured interviews to examine how these lines dividing the Courts into the major two camps of the progressive and the conservatives became clearer with the Bill of Rights becoming justifiable. It found that the pre-Bill of Rights period was marred by retrogressive and stagnant development of constitutional litigation and judicial approaches despite some few and isolated bold-spirited attempts to go beyond the literal meaning of words. However, things considerably changed with the Bill of Rights becoming justifiable. The trend thereafter became more progressive although resulting into the enhancement of the divisions. The study concludes that these divergent views of the judges have now become the dividing lines among them creating thus the two trends of the progressive and conservative. Thus, the study recommends, inter alia, for a representative and transparent or participatory procedure and clearly identified criteria for judicial appointment aimed at enhancement of judicial independence and improvement of the quality of judicial work.