Tanzania has several indigenous minorities. They include the Maasai, Barbaig, Hadzabe, Ndorobo and others. Some are still engaged in hunting and gathering, while others are pastoralists. The government is unhappy about their way of life and believes that it has a duty to “emancipate” these “backward” people by “civilising” them through bringing “modern development” to areas they live in. This is through the building of schools and hospitals, the provision of running water, etc. In the process of undertaking this mission, it has negatively affected the lives of these groups. It has destroyed their property, and displaced them from their traditional living areas. This has been done in total disregard to their ways of life, traditions, beliefs and above all the right to own property which is guaranteed by the Constitution. Some of the indigenous minorities whose rights have been violated by the government have decided to challenge the violation of their fundamental rights in the courts of law. This paper examines the handling of the cases related to the rights of indigenous minorities by the higher judiciary in Tanzania, particularly the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Experience indicates that, like the government, the judiciary has been sympathetic toward indigenous minorities.
Private investors contributed considerably to the process of colonization and with the aid of their States managed to make huge profits out of the colonies. It is interesting and worth noting that the very movement towards colonialism was spear-headed and financed by investors who were looking for new sources of cheap raw materials for their industries, cheap labour power, and of course markets. Colonialism was therefore first and foremost intended to combat the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and to ensure super-profits. At the dictate of the owners of capital, different colonial powers formulated specific policies concerning investments by individuals in their dominions. These policies were determined by concrete material conditions in the specific states and the precise aim for exporting capital. As well, it was important to keep competitors from other states interfering with the exclusive interests of the colonialism power.
Most African countries got their flag independence in the 1960s. Soon thereafter, one after the other, the new states began falling into the hands of new military strongmen. Those lucky fell under one-party dictatorships. Democracy and rule of law became alien to the continent. Using the case study of East Africa, this paper asks what should be done to improve the situation in the continent. Many in the continent thought that the introduction of a multiparty political system in the 1990s would improve the situation. It did not happen. The same military juntas had traded military fatigues with designer suits and got themselves “elected” into the same offices they got in by force in the first place. Constitutions in Africa are not worth the paper they are written on. They are amended just like any other inferior law. This paper attempts to propose what could be done to make constitutions in Africa endure time and become more stable. It is being proposed that Africa needs to respect the main tenets of constitutionalism. These are rule of law, independence of judiciary and clear separation of powers in the state. These principles should be complemented by development of a culture of peace, respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, equal access of all citizens to the natural wealth and resources of the country, and limited leadership. As a model for constitutionalism, the East African region has nothing to offer to the continent.