IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA, [CAP 2 R.E. 2002] AND IN THE MATTER OF THE BASIC RIGHTS AND DUTIES ENFORCEMENT ACT [CAP 3 R.E. 2002] AND IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICATURE AND APPLICATION OF LAWS ACT, [CAP 358 R.E. 2002] AND IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC LEADERSHIP CODE OF ETHICS ACT [CAP 398 R.E. 2002] AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ETHICS TRIBUNAL HON. ANDREW JOHN CHENGE v. THE PUBLIC LEADERS� ETHICS SECRETARIAT AND TWO OTHERS

In May 2014, the Prime Minister of the United Republic informed the National Assembly that the Government had tasked the Controller and Auditor General (“CAG”) to conduct an audit of an account at the Bank of Tanzania known as the Tegeta Escrow Account. Upon receiving the CAG Report, the Prime Minister handed it over to the Speaker of the National Assembly, who forwarded it to the Public Accounts Committee (“PAC”) for analysis and recommendations. The PAC prepared its own Report. Both Reports mention the petitioner as one of the individuals who were paid some money allegedly withdrawn from the Tegeta Escrow Account. The Report of the PAC was scheduled for tabling before the National Assembly in the afternoon of 26^th November, 2014. However, in the morning of that day, the Speaker was served with a Drawn Order given the day before by this Court in Misc. Civil Cause No. 50 of 2014, filed by Independent Power Tanzania Ltd. (“IPTL”) and Pan African Power Solutions Ltd. (“PAP”) against the Hon. Prime Minister & Others (among them the Attorney General, the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Chairman of the PAC). The Drawn Order included an interim order for the maintenance of status quo. Despite such order the Parliament decided to proceed with its business as scheduled, namely, that the PAC’s Report should be tabled and discussions thereon should proceed. The House discussed it and made certain resolutions, some of which were adverse to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the effect of the alleged infringement of the Court Order was to render whatever was deliberated upon by the National Assembly a nullity, because the deliberations and resolutions were tainted with what he terms material irregularity/illegality. This is the first ground upon which the petition is based. The second ground is that neither the CAG, the PAC, nor the National Assembly, afforded him any right to be heard before reaching the impugned conclusions and resolutions. Subsequently, as result of the National Assembly resolutions the 1^st respondent, the Ethics Secretariat, initiated proceedings in the Public Leaders Ethics Tribunal (the 2^nd respondent) against the petitioner. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner raised objections against the proceedings, stating that the matter was pending before this court and that there was a Court order restraining the proceedings, which emanate from the National Assembly Resolutions. The Tribunal dismissed the objection. Dissatisfied with that decision, the petitioner has come to this Court by way of the present petition to challenges the said acts of the respondents. Upon being served with a copy of the petition and its annexures, the respondents, all of whom are represented by the Office of the Attorney General, have raised five points of preliminary objection among other that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this matter.