Political Question Doctrine and its Justiciability in Tanzania: A Critical Analysis of Attorney General vs Rev. Christopher Mtikila

Abstract

This article examines the nature, application, and scope of the controversial political question doctrine. What the doctrine seeks to achieve is at odds with what is intended by the justiciability theory. While justiciability principle aims at allowing all legal questions properly brought before the court to be conclusively determined by the court, political question doctrine intends to deny litigants of legal protection by prohibiting the courts from entertaining legal disputes properly presented and which are otherwise justiciable. The controversy has always been on how to reconcile the two theories. This paper evaluates the existence and efficacy of the doctrine in legal disputes relating to the interpretation of the Constitution. It is submitted that, although the doctrine remains relevant since there are matters of public policy which are constitutionally nonjusticiable, courts in Tanzania have not developed criteria for determining when and under what circumstances should the doctrine be invoked. Keywords: Political Question, Justiciability, Interpretation of the Constitution, Separation of Powers, Judicial Review, Tanzania.