Zanzibaris are challenging the legality and legitimacy of Articles of Union of Republic of Tanzania, saying the pact was itself invalid from the outset.

The East African Court of Justice (EACJ) has heard a preliminary objection the Tanzania government has filed questioning the legality of the regional court to hear a case on the existence of its own creator.

Lady Justice Monica Mugenyi said after hearing the preliminary objection through video conference on July 6 that the First Instance Division of the court would deliver its judgement on a written notice.

Rashid Salum Adiy and 39,999 other Zanzibaris are challenging the legality, legitimacy and continued existence of Articles of Union creating the United Republic of Tanzania.

They argue that the Articles of Union alleged to be signed between Tanganyika and Zanzibar were inexistent and that the signing itself was invalid from the outset.

The Articles of Union were not ratified on April 25, 1964, as claimed and that they were not registered in accordance with Article 102 of the United Nations.

The UN Secretary General adopting and recognising the Union was fraud, as there was no evidence of ratification by the Zanzibar government and that the change of names of the two states was in violation of international law.

The Zanzibaris are asking the court to order the Articles of Union non-existent, the Union a nullity, to declare the archipelago an autonomous and sovereign state of its own and to order the government to enact laws re-establishing the autonomy and sovereignty of the Revolution of Zanzibar.

The Union government insisted during the hearing of its preliminary objection that the regional court did not have the mandate to decide the existence of one of its founders as stipulated in Article 27 of the East African Community (EAC) Treaty.

Article 27(1) says the court shall initially have jurisdiction over the interpretation and application of the EAC Treaty, but it shall not include the application of any such interpretation to jurisdiction conferred by the treaty on organs of partner states.

“If the court does, it will be questioning its own existence and of other East African Community organs,” said Gabriel Maana, the Tanzania Deputy Solicitor General, adding that the court was an interested party in the case, as the treaty was also being questioned.

Mr Maana said over 52 years had passed since the Union was established, while the time to file a petition at the regional court was two months since the event had occurred.

Mr Rashid Mutola, the counsel representing the Zanzibaris, said the preliminary objection was just intending to delay the case, pleading with the court to continue hearing it and let the Tanzania government file an appeal if the need arises.

“Litigation must come to an end, dismiss the preliminary objection with costs,” he stressed.

Mr Maana poked holes in Mutola’s response, saying it was based on wisdom and that it failed to counter his submission that was based on the treaty, not the rules of procedure alone.

The Deputy Solicitor General asked the court to honour his submission, saying a preliminary objection could be submitted at any stage of the court proceedings. Mr Mutola argued, nonetheless, saying his submission was based on Article 27 (2) of the treaty on human-rights violations which were not time-barred at the court.