Dodoma. The High Court of Tanzania has dismissed a constitutional case filed by Advocate Peter Madeleka, challenging the government’s decision to grant Tanzanian citizenship to three Singida Black Stars (SBS) foreign players.
The ruling was delivered at the High Court’s Main Registry in Dodoma by Judge Evaristo Longopa after upholding a preliminary objection raised by the respondents, including two involved players.
Addressing the media after the ruling, Advocate Madeleka said, “I’ve received the Court’s decision. Since it was struck out at the preliminary objection stage, it gives room to reorganize, correct the errors, and refile the case.”
Represented in court by Advocate John Seka, Madeleka petitioned the court to declare the government’s decision to grant citizenship to three SBS players unconstitutional.
In a judgment issued on April 9, 2025 — and published on the Judiciary’s website on April 11, 2025 — Judge Longopa stated that the preliminary objections raised by the respondents were valid and warranted the case’s dismissal.
“Under the circumstances, the petition before this Court is inadmissible due to procedural irregularities identified during review. Therefore, the Court finds it appropriate to strike it out due to incurable defects,” said the Judge.
Background of the Case
The constitutional petition named the Minister of Home Affairs as the first respondent, the Commissioner General of Immigration as the second, and the Attorney General as the third.
The three SBS players — Emmanuel Keyekeh (Ghana), Josephat Bada (Ivory Coast), and Muhamed Camara (Guinea) — were also listed as the fourth, fifth, and sixth respondents, respectively.
Other respondents included the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the Director of Immigration Services as the seventh and eighth respondents.
What the petition sought
Advocate Madeleka requested the court to declare that the Minister of Home Affairs, by invoking Section 23 of the Citizenship Act, had overstepped the limits of the Constitution and violated Section 9 of the same Act.
He further argued that by recommending citizenship for the players, the Commissioner General of Immigration and the Director of Immigration Services acted contrary to the Constitution and citizenship laws.
Advocate Madeleka asked the Court to declare that the players were ineligible for citizenship and that the Minister, CGI, and the players themselves had participated in issuing citizenship under improper circumstances.
He also sought a court order compelling the Minister and CGI to immediately revoke the players’ citizenship certificates and surrender them to the Court Registrar pending final judgment.
The petition further asked the Court to order the Attorney General to initiate appropriate measures to scrutinize the actions of the Minister, CGI, and their subordinates.
Additionally, he requested that the DPP launch a criminal investigation into the conduct of the Minister, CGI, the players, and the Director of Immigration Services to determine if any crimes had been committed.
He demanded that respondents be ordered to pay Sh500 million as punitive damages for their actions and that players themselves pay Sh200 million for their involvement in the alleged constitutional violations.
Finally, Advocate Madeleka sought legal costs and any other orders the Court deemed appropriate.
Legal objections
Respondents Josephat Bada and Muhamed Camara filed a preliminary objection, arguing that the case was flawed since the petitioner failed to demonstrate how he had personally suffered harm.
They also argued that the petition was legally unsound and included a respondent — the eighth, Director of Immigration Services — whose position no longer exists under the amended 2015 Citizenship Act.
Respondents one, two, three, and seven also submitted a four-point objection, including that the petitioner failed to show how Articles 12 and 29 of the Constitution had affected him personally.
Another point was that the case violated Sections 4(5) and 8(2) of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act (Bradea) 2019 since the petitioner had not exhausted alternative remedies before approaching the court.
They also argued that the High Court lacked jurisdiction over the orders sought and that including a legally defunct respondent made the petition invalid.
Senior State Attorney Edwin Webiro, representing the respondents, emphasized that the eighth respondent’s position was abolished under the 2015 amendment.
Advocate Anatory Nyaki, representing respondents five and six, made similar arguments.
Despite attempts by Advocate Seka to challenge these objections, the Court was not persuaded.
The Court’s ruling
After hearing arguments from both sides, Judge Longopa ruled that the Constitution must be enforced according to established legal procedures, citing several precedent-setting cases.
The judge noted that in his affidavit, Advocate Madeleka identified himself as a human rights activist and football enthusiast but failed to demonstrate how the alleged violations affected him personally.
“If those are the general contents of the affidavit, it is evident the petitioner did not adequately explain how the alleged violations of Articles 12 and 29 personally affected him,” said the Judge.
He emphasized that the petition did not meet the threshold set under Section 4(2) of the Bradea Act, which requires a petitioner to demonstrate personal harm resulting from the alleged constitutional violation.
On the inclusion of an irrelevant respondent, the Court found consensus among parties that the eighth respondent — Director of Immigration Services — no longer exists legally.
“Constitutional petitions require scrutiny as they deal with significant issues. Therefore, petitioners must be diligent in identifying proper respondents,” said Judge Longopa.
He also pointed out that Advocate Madeleka did not challenge any specific provision of the Citizenship Act as unconstitutional, but rather how the law was applied to granting citizenship to the players.
“The complaint before the Court centers on the alleged violation of Section 9(1) of the Citizenship Act, said to have led to a breach of Article 26(1) of the Constitution.”
He concluded that such matters are more appropriate for judicial review than constitutional petitions.
“In light of these considerations, the petition before the Court is inadmissible due to fundamental procedural defects, and is hereby struck out,” ruled the judge.
