High Court defends president’s decision to extend CJ’s time in office

Dar es Salaam. The High Court has ruled in favour of President Samia Suluhu Hassan’s decision to extend the tenure of the current Chief Justice, Ibrahim Juma, saying it does not breach the constitution.

Prof Juma turned 65 on June 15, 2023, the retirement age of the Justices of the Court of Appeal.

However, President Hassan extended his tenure to an unspecified timeframe, raising concerns from people who accused the Head of State of violating the constitution.

Last month, one Humphrey Malenga filed a petition against the Attorney General, demanding the High Court declare that the extension of tenure was unconstitutional.

On Friday, the High Court of Tanzania’s main registry in Dar es Salaam dismissed the petition, arguing that it has no merit.

Mr Malenga argued that Prof Juma ought to have vacated the office of the Chief Justice of Tanzania with effect from June 15, 2023, when his age clocked 65, as known by the public.

There is no peculiar age of retirement for the CJ mentioned in the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, but since the head of the Judiciary is also the Justice of the Court of Appeal, it’s therefore the retirement age of the Justice of Appeal that determines the CJ’s retirement.

The President also has the power to extend the tenure of the Justice of Appeal to enable him or her to continue to discharge their duties.

According to the judgement delivered by Judge Isaya J on Friday, while the provisions of Article 118(2) of the Constitution state that the Chief Justice shall hold office until the retirement age of the Justice of Appeal, Articles 120(2) and (3) of the same Constitution allow the President to either suspend retirement age or extend the tenure of service of a Justice of Appeal, who includes the CJ.

Prof Juma served as acting Chief Justice from 2017 to 2021, when he was fully appointed to the position.

After the Friday judgement, the petitioner’s lawyer, Ipilinga Panya, said they would review the decision and decide whether to appeal or not.

“After receiving the judgement, we will go through it and discuss it with our client to see whether he’s satisfied with the decision or not. From there, we will decide whether to appeal or not,” Mr Panya told journalists.

In the past, most chief justices retired at the age of 65, but there have been several occasions when the tenure of others was extended.

Born in 1952, the previous Chief Justice, Mohammed Chande Othman, retired in 2017 at exactly the age of 65. The same was true for his predecessor, the late Augustino Ramadhani, who was born in 1945 and retired in 2010.

But Ramadhani’s predecessor, retired Justice Barnabas Samatta, was in the office for two more years. Born in 1940, he was supposed to retire in 2005, but his tenure was extended to July 2007.