TLS president, Boniface Mwabukusi, had made remarks concerning governors of Tanzania over the adoption of DP-WORLD lease agreement of Tanzania’s Dar-es-Salaam port. AG was unhappy with those remarks and decided to report Mwabukusi to the National Advocates Committee that agreed with the AG that those utterances had violated Advocates’ professional ethics. The committee warned Mwabukusi not to repeat it again but didn’t afford him with reasons for their inimical ruling.
Mwabukusi was undeterred and opted to lodge his complaint with the High Court that decided since he wasn’t given reasons the committee decision had violated principles of natural justice. The bone of contention was whether the High Court was right to remit the matter back to NAC to rehear the whole matter afresh.
This article argues that the legal position had violated the very principles of natural justice the court was attempting to safeguard. Once a quasi-judicial body has made a decision it ought to be deemed too biased to take a second bite of their own selfmade mess. Here is my reasoned consideration.
The Legal Consequence Under Voidness Doctrine: “Rendered NAC’s Ruling… a Nullity Ab Initio”
Court Quashes Verdict Against Mwabukusi.
The High Court, subsidiary Division, in Dar es Salaam, has quashed and set aside the decision of the National Advocates Committee that found the President of the Tanganyika Law Society (TLS), Boniface Mwabukusi, guilty of violating professional ethics.
Instead, in its ruling delivered on August 7, 2025, by a three-judge bench comprising Elizabeth Mkwizu (presiding judge), Awamu Mbagwa, and Hussein Mtembwa, the court ordered the committee to rehear the case against Mwabukusi in which he was convicted.
The court reached this decision following an appeal filed by Mwabukusi challenging the committee’s verdict. He argued that the committee failed to provide reasons for its decision on a preliminary objection he raised, instead proceeding to hear the main case and ultimately finding him guilty.
“Considering this, we allow this appeal,” stated the court.
After allowing the appeal, the court stated it *could* have ordered the Committee to provide reasons for its decision and orders regarding that preliminary objection, then proceed to hear the case on its merits. However, it recognized a critical problem: the chairman of the committee who heard the case and delivered the verdict has since retired. It is impossible for the current committee to write a judgment and provide reasons for a matter it did not hear.
“Faced with this challenge, we are compelled to quash the entire proceedings of the committee, the order on the preliminary objection, the appealed judgment, and all other consequential orders,” the court stated, concluding:
“Therefore, we remit the case file to the original committee to be reheard afresh. We order each party to bear their own costs.”
Mwabukusi was found guilty by the committee in its decision delivered on May 17, 2024, in Complaint Case No. 10 of 2023 filed against him by the Attorney General (AG).
In that complaint, the AG accused Mwabukusi of using improper language contrary to the Advocates (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Regulations of 2018.
The AG charged Mwabukusi before the committee based on statements he made on July 3, 2023, during proceedings in the case concerning the Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) between the Government of Tanzania and the United Arab Emirates (Dubai).
That case (“Alphonce Lusako and Others vs. The Attorney General and Others”) was filed at the High Court – Commercial Division Mbeya, challenging the agreement on grounds that it was not in the national interest. Mwabukusi was one of the lawyers for the petitioners.
In the committee, the AG alleged that within the court premises after the case was adjourned, Mwabukusi gathered people and addressed them using language unbecoming of the legal profession, as follows:
“The Speaker of the National Assembly of the United Republic of Tanzania, the Prime Minister of the United Republic of Tanzania, they do not know what they passed in parliament. Even Chief Mangungo is being lied to because he knew it was an agreement. The government has been deceiving citizens, saying they signed a ‘framework agreement’ (makubaliano) and not a treaty (mkataba). If a dispute arises, rush to file a case outside the country because if you file outside the country, the UK’s position won’t recognize Tanzanian laws. Therefore, even if someone violates the Natural Resources Law, if they go and stand in the UK, Natural Resources law there is trash, it’s not enforceable.
So what they are doing is trying to mislead citizens. Follow the parliamentary Hansards (debate records), then you will discover there was no Speaker, you will discover there was no Minister. You will discover that because even the Speaker himself didn’t know what he was passing, the Minister didn’t know what he was signing. I know that Chief Mangungo was a genius. Mbarawa and his Permanent Secretary should vacate their positions, they are endangering Tanganyika’s assets. I repeat emphatically, they are endangering Tanganyika’s assets, not Zanzibar’s assets.
That is, in the Union there are Zanzibar’s assets and Tanganyika’s assets. Zanzibar’s assets remained there (in Zanzibar), Tanganyika’s assets were placed under the United Republic Government. Therefore, what they did was take Tanganyika’s assets and hand them over limitlessly to a person. That’s why whenever someone answers us, they fail to show under which clause they are answering.”
He alleged Parliament deliberately decided to suspend its intelligence, will, and integrity for the love of an individual, saying this agreement belongs to that person, and through this agreement, anyone opposing it is an enemy of that person.
However, Mwabukusi vehemently denied the allegations through a sworn affidavit in reply, arguing that uttering those words did not constitute professional misconduct.
The committee, in its decision, was satisfied that the words uttered publicly did constitute professional misconduct. It therefore found him guilty of that offense but warned him to avoid using improper language and to observe and adhere to his professional ethics.
The committee explained that after hearing the parties, it decided, among other things, that the second and fourth grounds of the preliminary objection were dismissed. It stated that the reasons for that decision on the preliminary objection would be provided during the main judgment. It then ordered the hearing of the main case to proceed the following day and delivered the verdict now being appealed.
Court’s Reasoning for Allowing the Appeal:
The Court of Appeal, however, stated that failing to provide reasons for the decision was a violation of the fundamental principle of the right to a fair hearing. It emphasized that providing reasons is a basic requirement of justice and essential for satisfying the concerned parties.
The court stressed that giving reasons demonstrates accountability and transparency, exposes the decision-maker to scrutiny, and ensures powers are not misused or exercised arbitrarily.
“In this context, the Committee erred, and by doing so, violated the fundamental principle of the right to a fair hearing, which is central to the justice process,” the court emphasized, concluding:
“Therefore, since the defect in this matter violated the right to a fair hearing, we find that the error was fundamental and vitiated the entire proceedings. Consequently, the appellant’s complaint about the Committee’s failure to provide reasons for its decision is well-founded.“
Remand Perpetuates Injustice: NAC’s Void Ruling Against Mwabukusi Must Be Vacated Following Ridge v Baldwi.
In the decision of Ridge vs. Baldwin the UK House of Lords ruled that:
“…violation of the principles of natural justice was not only voidable but void” should have nullified the National Advocates Committee’s ruling against TLS president Mwabukusi.
Saying otherwise affords the offending part another opportunity of window dressing to cover their tracks. It is a leeway to inflict the victim of miscarriage of justice with another round of injustice.
The best decision was to vacate the offending ruling of the National Advocates Committee and restore the status quo ante before the decision.
The argument that violations of natural justice render decisions “void” (legally invalid “ab initio”) rather than “voidable” (potentially valid until challenged) is strongly supported by the landmark precedent in “Ridge v Baldwin” [1964] AC 40. Applying this principle to the Tanzanian National Advocates Committee’s (NAC) ruling against Boniface Mwabukusi reveals critical flaws in the High Court’s remedy of remanding the case for rehearing. Here is a detailed analysis:
The Ridge v Baldwin Precedent:
Voidness of Decisions.
In “Ridge”, the UK House of Lords held that dismissal without notice of charges or a hearing breached natural justice, rendering the decision “void” (not merely voidable). Lord Reid emphasized:
“An officer cannot be lawfully dismissed without first being informed of the allegations and given an opportunity to defend himself.”
The Lords unanimously quashed the dismissal as a nullity, restoring Ridge’s position without remanding.
It is imperative to take note that Ridge vs. Baldwin was domesticated in Tanzania in a case of Stella Temu v. Tanzania Revenue Authority. So it is the law of the land deserving respect in all lower courts after the Appeals Court set that precedent.
Key Principle:
Violations of natural justice corrupt the decision’s validity from inception, making it legally nonexistent. Affording the offending body a “second chance” legitimizes procedural injustice.
The NAC’s Fundamental Breach in Mwabukusi’s Case.
The NAC’s failure to provide reasons for dismissing Mwabukusi’s preliminary objection breached core natural justice tenets:
Right to Notice and Hearing: NAC proceeded to a guilty verdict without justifying why Mwabukusi’s objections were overruled, denying him a meaningful defense.
Lack of Transparency: Lord Hodson in “Ridge” identified “notice of charges” and “right to respond” as pillars of natural justice. The NAC’s omission violated both.
Tanzanian High Court’s Admission: The court acknowledged the NAC’s breach as a “fundamental defect vitiating the entire proceedings“. Yet it ordered a rehearing, contradicting “Ridge”’s voidness doctrine.
Remanding the Case Perpetuates Injustice.
The High Court’s remedy—remanding to the NAC for rehearing—ignores practical and legal realities:
Retirement of Key NAC Members: The original committee chair retired, making impartial rehearing impossible. A new committee lacks context to fairly reassess the case.
Doctrinal Inconsistency: “Ridge” mandates voidness to prevent authorities from “window-dressing” flawed decisions. Remanding allows the NAC to retroactively justify its actions, undermining accountability.
Victim Re-traumatization: Mwabukusi endures prolonged litigation despite a proven breach. “Ridge” prioritized finality by annulling the decision outright to spare victims procedural limbo.
Exceptions to Natural Justice Do Not Apply.
The NAC cannot invoke common exceptions: No Emergency: Unlike “Mohinder Singh Gill v CEC” (reelections during mob violence), no urgent excuse bypasses natural justice.
No Impracticality: Unlike “Bihar School Examination Board” (mass cheating), the NAC had ample time to provide reasons but chose not to.
No Statutory Override: Parliament did not expressly exclude natural justice in advocating discipline.
Correct Remedy: Voiding the NAC’s Decision.
Per “Ridge”, the only just outcome is to: “Vacate the NAC’s ruling entirely”, restoring Mwabukusi’s pre-decision status.
Avoid Remanding: As Lord Reid warned, validating procedurally rotten decisions incentivizes future abuses.
Award Costs: Mwabukusi should recover legal costs as redress for the NAC’s unlawful process.
Perpetuation Of Injustices Defeats The Relevance Of Courts.
The Tanzanian High Court erred in treating the NAC’s void decision as voidable. “Ridge v Baldwin” compels annulment without remission when natural justice is breached. Upholding “voidness” is not merely doctrinal rigor—it prevents authorities from weaponizing procedural delays and retrials to exhaust victims. For Mwabukusi, restoring the “status quo ante” is the only remedy aligning with global natural justice principles. As “Ridge” affirmed: “Fair process is the bedrock of legitimacy; its absence cannot be cured by rerouting through the same flawed system.”
Read more analysis by Rutashubanyuma Nestory
