Many in Tanzania may be unfamiliar with the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) but even our own Tanganyika Law Society (TLS) is not well known. The LSK and TLS are non-governmental organizations that are formed by lawyers in the respective countries of Kenya and Tanzania to promote the interests of members who are lawyers, the rule of law and good governance.
LSK does not need anybody to introduce it in Kenya but her diligent commitment to the rule of law speaks volumes about her resume. Unlike the Tanganyika Law Society who only wakes up from her slumber when the parochial interests of her leaders come under the spotlight. I will cite a few examples to drive this point home.
When renowned advocate Fatma Karume saw her legal career prematurely brought to an end in a manner that suggests abuse of power, legal and judicial malpractices the TLS distanced itself from her occupational turmoil as if she was not an active member of the society! Despite the TLS constitution promising to defend justice and the rule of law in this particular instance others opted to play it safe, condoning judicial excesses.
When the Supreme Court of Kenya banned for life advocate Abdullahi Ahmednasir for his acerbic criticism against the court, the LSK lodged an application before the High Court of Kenya challenging an administrative fiat against one of her members. The Supreme Court defended her decision claiming immunity proffered by the Kenyan Constitution.
However, Abdullah has been pushing back against the Supreme Court’s assertions, arguing that the Court’s decision was administrative, not judicial, and thus not covered by constitutional immunity.
Also, read: Freeman Mbowe Has a Valid Point to be Heard, But Where Is the Truth?
TLS has never shown any interest in its member Fatma Karume’s fight to restore her advocate certificate, which was revoked unlawfully. She achieved a significant victory in the High Court in Dar es Salaam, which ruled in her favour, stating that her right to a fair hearing had been violated from the outset.
The AG decided to appeal prolonging her agony, and lately, the AG has decided to accept the High Court ruling. In all these legal turbulence, the Tanganyika Law Society was silent choosing to enjoy the crumbs at the footstools of the rulers of the day rather than rebuking it for intentional mischief.
TLS has been playing the government doorkeeper as recently blocked another famous lawyer Boniface Mwabukusu from gunning down the TLS presidency. Mwabukusu has fired back a salvo claiming his illegal denial to exercise his constitutional right to seek TLS office has been done to placate the executive that still grinds a huge axe against him following his legal onslaught against the Dar-es-Salaam port leasing to the Dubai World.
Previous to that, the TLS has sought to bar Mwabukusu from being a member on frivolous and vexatious grounds that stemmed from the Dubai World fallout. Mwabukusu was only exercising his constitutional rights and had acted within the limits of the law, and recommending disciplinary measures against him confirmed beyond reasonable doubt who were the true owners of the TLS: the government, not the TLS members.
Post-independence Tanzania has seen successive governments attempting to hijack genuine causes whether professional or occupational to support her survival causes. From sports, and workers’ unions, to cooperative movements and professional associations – the executive has attempted to handpick leaders to ensure such free organizations cannot rival the state in any way.
However, the Tanganyika Law Society has in the past successfully withstood pressures that saw anti-establishment luminaries such as Tundu Lissu and Fatma Karume romping to electoral victories contrary to the expectations of the executive. Such an independent streak from TLS is now confined to museums.
During the elections of both Lissu and Karume, there were executive threats that forewarned reprisals if anti-establishment figures would lead LSK. One of the former ministers who cautioned the TLS was Dr Harrison Mwakyembe, a member of the TLS but whose interests conflict with those of the TLS. Despite those threats, the TLS members stood firm and elected mercurial figures despite threats of reprisals from the executive.
Part of the problem TLS leadership encumbers are the executive baits standing in the way. The president of the LSK is automatically appointed in several government institutions as a board member, which is a motivation for many a lawyer to seek that office. TLS must end the inappropriate relationships with a government that encourages its leaders to bootlick the government.
Also, read: Celebrating Tanzania’s Brightest Minds: Meet the 19 Visionary Leaders Shaping Tanzania’s Future
When the TLS instituted disciplinary measures against Mwabukusi and another advocate for being ultra critical of the Dubai-based port operator acquisition of the lease agreement of Dar-es-Salaam port the question that popped into my mind was whom was TLS serving? The government was not a complainant but TLS leaders were contrary to clear strictures of the TLS constitution.
What the TLS leadership was doing was to discourage and punish advocacy and accountability. The question which the TLS ought to keep interrogating herself is what kind of a professional body that is hostile to advocacy and the rule of law? The very premises TLS grounds her raison d’ètre are now being gutted down! For wheels interest?
By puncturing advocacy and accountability, the TLS leadership may be ingratiating the rulers of the day and undermining long-term interest that led to the formation of the TLS in the first place.
Unlike the TLS which is pandering to the state, the LSK steadfastly defends the rights of her members notwithstanding her relationship with the government. A few days ago, President Ruto’s administration appointed the TLS national debt taskforce. The LSK president Faith Odhiambo argued that the mandate to audit public debt rests with the office of theAuditor-General.
LSK categorically refused to undermine constitutional offices. Had that opportunity fallen to our money-seeking TLS leaders that chance would have been accepted without due concern of the rout of constitutional offices. Let us face it, the TLS leadership is about making money but not advancing the objectives that led to the creation of the TLS.
Reforming the Tanganyika Law Society may be difficult because those in power are the chief beneficiaries, and will resist changes because such changes will defeat the very reasons that catapulted them to those offices. Of more significance, is the severance of ex-officio perks as a leeway to government plum jobs.
The LSK never allow her leader’s automatic path to such windfalls as the TLS does. If there are constitutional offices such as representation in the judiciary commission, only direct suffrage would resolve those conflicts of interest. TLS does not have a checks and balance system of governance in place as a result abuse of office has now become part of her modus operandi.
The more the TLS abuse the rights of her acerbic members the more the leaders are approved by the executive eager to keep everybody under the leash.
It defeats the very reasons the TLS was created in the first place to side with the government at the slightest provocation. That can only end if holders of office do not automatically assume public offices because that is inherently offensive. It creates a conducive environment for official bribes, that is why I recommend ending it.
LSK has her weaknesses too when it comes to lodging presidential petitions as a litigant or a friend of the court. However, this is a subject of interest for another day.
I have gone through your article, and i would like to thank you for good article you have wrote.. cheers 🥂