This analysis will rigorously examine the procedural fairness principles of audi alteram partem, nemo

debet esse judex in propria causa, and nullum arbitrium sine rationibus within Tanzanian administrative
and judicial practice. It will combine doctrinal exposition with critical jurisprudential evaluation and
propose well-argued reform recommendations.

Introduction to Procedural Fairness in Tanzania

Procedural fairness, often encapsulated by the broader concept of "natural justice," forms the bedrock
of a just legal system. In Tanzania, these principles are not merely abstract ideals but are deeply
entrenched in the common law, informed by constitutional provisions, and applied through a rich
tapestry of judicial decisions. They serve to ensure that individuals are treated justly when their rights,
legitimate expectations, or interests are affected by administrative or judicial decisions. The three core
principles under scrutiny are:

* Audi alteram partem (hear the other side): The right to be heard.

* Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa (no one should be a judge in their own cause): The rule
against bias.

* Nullum arbitrium sine rationibus (no decision without reasons): The requirement for reasoned
decisions.

These principles aim to foster public confidence in the administration of justice and uphold the rule of
law.

a) Audi Alteram Partem: From Formal Right to Substantive Fairness

The principle of audi alteram partem has evolved significantly in Tanzanian administrative and judicial
practice, moving beyond a simplistic notion of merely allowing a party to speak, to encompassing a
substantive fairness requirement. This evolution recognizes that a mere perfunctory hearing, without
genuine consideration of the party's submissions, would render the right meaningless. Substantive
fairness under audi alteram partem demands:

* Adequate Notice: Parties must be informed of the case against them with sufficient detail and in good
time to prepare their response.

* Opportunity to Present One's Case: This includes the right to present evidence, call witnesses, and
make submissions.

* Right to Rebut Adverse Evidence: Individuals should have the opportunity to challenge and respond to
any evidence presented against them.

* Legal Representation (where appropriate): In complex cases, or where an individual's livelihood or

Let's illustrate its application in two distinct settings:

i) Licensing Proceedings

In licensing matters, audi alteram partem ensures that individuals or entities seeking or holding licenses
are not arbitrarily denied, revoked, or suspended without a fair hearing.

* Formal Right: Initially, this might have meant simply allowing an applicant to submit their application
and perhaps attend a brief interview.

* Substantive Fairness: The modern application demands more. If a licensing authority intends to deny
or revoke a license, it must:

* Notify the applicant/licensee of the specific grounds for the proposed action (e.g., non-compliance
with regulations, unsuitability).

* Provide an opportunity for the applicant/licensee to respond to these allegations, including

* Consider any representations made before making a final decision. For example, if a business license
is threatened due to alleged environmental violations, the business must be given a chance to explain its
compliance measures or propose remedial actions. Failure to provide such an opportunity would render
the decision procedurally unfair, regardless of the merits of the allegations.

ii) Disciplinary Proceedings

In disciplinary proceedings, particularly in employment or professional bodies, audi alteram partem is

* Formal Right: Historically, this might have been satisfied by merely informing an employee that they
were being disciplined and asking for a brief explanation.

* Substantive Fairness: Today, the principle requires a much more robust process:

* Specific Charges: The employee must be clearly informed of the specific allegations of misconduct
against them, including dates, times, and particulars. Vague accusations are insufficient.

* Opportunity to Respond and Defend: The employee must be given adequate time to prepare a
defense, present their version of events, call witnesses, and cross-examine adverse witnesses (where
applicable).

* Impartial Decision-Maker: While strictly falling under nemo debet esse judex in propria causa, the
absence of an impartial decision-maker would inherently undermine the fairness of the hearing itself.
 * Consideration of Mitigating Factors: Even if guilt is established, the decision-maker must consider
any mitigating circumstances presented by the employee before determining the appropriate penalty.

Tanzanian courts have consistently intervened to quash disciplinary decisions where these substantive
elements of audi alteram partem were lacking, emphasizing that the form of the hearing must align with
the substance of fairness.

b) Nemo Debet Esse Judex in Propria Causa: Actual vs. Apparent Bias

The principle of nemo debet esse judex in propria causa is fundamental to the legitimacy of any
adjudicative process, ensuring that justice is not only done but is seen to be done. Tanzanian law, like
many common law jurisdictions, distinguishes between actual bias and apparent (or ostensible) bias.

* Actual Bias: This is exceedingly difficult to prove, as it requires demonstrating that the decision-maker
was actually prejudiced in their decision-making. It involves probing the subjective state of mind of the
decision-maker, which is inherently challenging.

* Apparent Bias: This is the more common and practical ground for challenging a decision on the basis
of bias. It focuses on how an objective, informed observer would perceive the situation. The concern is
not whether the decision-maker was actually biased, but whether the circumstances are such that a
reasonable person would apprehend a real possibility of bias.

Mhidini Ahmad Ndolanga v National Sports Council

While specific details of Mhidini Ahmad Ndolanga v National Sports Council are not extensively detailed
in general public administrative law resources for Tanzania, the case, like others involving the principle
of nemo debet esse judex in propria causa, would have revolved around a situation where a decision-
maker had a personal interest, or a perceived interest, in the outcome of the proceedings.

In such a case, the Tanzanian courts would likely have applied a test for apparent bias similar to the
traditional common law approach, which generally asked whether a "reasonable person" would
"reasonably apprehend" that the decision-maker might be biased. This test is objective and focuses on
appearances. If, for instance, a member of the National Sports Council making a decision concerning
Ndolanga was a direct competitor or had a financial stake in an opposing sports entity, a strong
argument for apparent bias could be made. The court would scrutinize the relationship between the
decision-maker and the subject of the decision, and consider whether a fair-minded person would
conclude that there was a real risk of partiality.

Juxtaposition to the English Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 Standard

The English case of Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 established a new, consolidated test for apparent
bias that has gained significant traction internationally. Lord Hope of Craighead famously articulated the
test as:
> "The question is whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would
conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased."

>

This "fair-minded and informed observer" test subtly shifted the emphasis. Key aspects of this test
include:

* "Fair-minded": Implies an objective and reasonable person, not overly sensitive or unduly suspicious.

* "Informed": Suggests the observer has knowledge of all the relevant circumstances of the case, not
just superficial facts. This includes an understanding of the nature of the decision-making body, its
procedures, and the context of the decision.

* "Real possibility": This is a lower threshold than "real likelihood" or "probability," but higher than a
mere "suspicion" or "possibility." It signifies a genuine risk of bias.

Comparison with Tanzania's Approach:

While Tanzanian courts have generally applied a "reasonable apprehension" test, the Porter v Magill
formulation, with its "fair-minded and informed observer" and "real possibility" language, offers a more
refined and perhaps more objective standard.

* Similarities: Both approaches aim to identify apparent bias through an objective lens. Both recognize
that public confidence in the administration of justice is paramount and that even the appearance of
bias can undermine this.

* Differences/Potential Evolution: Tanzanian jurisprudence could benefit from explicitly adopting and
elaborating on the Porter v Magill standard. The "informed observer" aspect is particularly valuable, as it
encourages courts to consider the full context of a decision, rather than isolated facts that might, out of
context, suggest bias. This can help to avoid overly technical or speculative findings of bias. The "real
possibility" threshold provides a clearer metric than "reasonable apprehension," which can sometimes
be interpreted broadly.

Reform Recommendation: Tanzanian courts should expressly adopt the Porter v Magill "fair-minded and
informed observer" test for apparent bias. This would provide greater clarity and consistency in the
application of the nemo debet esse judex in propria causa principle, aligning Tanzania with a widely
recognized and robust international standard. Training for administrative tribunals and judicial officers
should emphasize this nuanced approach.

c) Nullum Arbitrium Sine Rationibus: The Judiciary's Recognition and Impact

The principle of nullum arbitrium sine rationibus, or the requirement for reasoned decisions, is
increasingly recognized as a vital component of procedural fairness in Tanzania. While not always
explicitly enshrined in statutes, the judiciary has, through landmark decisions, underscored its
importance. A reasoned decision is essential for several reasons:
* Transparency and Accountability: It allows parties to understand why a decision was reached,
promoting transparency in the decision-making process.

* Facilitates Appeals/Reviews: Without reasons, it is impossible for an appellate or review body to

* Promotes Good Decision-Making: The act of articulating reasons forces decision-makers to carefully
consider the evidence and legal principles, thereby improving the quality of decisions.

* Enhances Public Confidence: When decisions are explained, the public is more likely to perceive the
process as fair and legitimate, even if they disagree with the outcome.

Let's examine its recognition across three hypothetical landmark decisions (as specific Tanzanian cases
explicitly articulating nullum arbitrium sine rationibus as a primary focus are not readily available in
general databases, we will create illustrative scenarios reflecting common judicial approaches):

Illustrative Landmark Decisions in Tanzania

* Case 1: (Illustrative) Republic v. Commissioner of Lands (Ex Parte: Housing Development Trust)

* Context: A land allocation was revoked by the Commissioner of Lands without any reasons provided
to the affected Housing Development Trust.

* Judiciary's Recognition: The High Court, in quashing the decision, emphasized that even in
administrative actions where a formal hearing might not be mandated by statute, the principle of
fairness demands that reasons be provided for decisions affecting substantive rights. The court reasoned
that without knowing why their allocation was revoked, the Trust could not effectively challenge the
decision or rectify any perceived shortcomings.

* Effect on Appeal Outcomes and Public Confidence: The lack of reasons rendered the Commissioner's
decision unassailable on appeal, leading to an automatic quashing. This demonstrates how insufficient
reasoning directly affects appeal outcomes, making judicial review almost perfunctory on the procedural
ground. Public confidence in land administration could be severely eroded if such significant decisions
are made arbitrarily without explanation.

* Case 2: (Illustrative) Director of Public Prosecutions v. Accused (Appeal from Magistrate's Court)

* Context: A lower court acquitted an accused person without providing any discernible reasons for its
decision, merely stating "accused acquitted."

* Judiciary's Recognition: On appeal, the High Court (or Court of Appeal) overturned the acquittal and
remitted the case for a proper re-trial or for the magistrate to provide detailed reasons for the original
decision. The appellate court held that a judgment, whether for conviction or acquittal, must
demonstrate the court's reasoning, showing how the evidence was evaluated and the law applied. It
highlighted that reasons are crucial for the appellate court to understand the basis of the decision and
for public scrutiny of the judicial process.
 * Effect on Appeal Outcomes and Public Confidence: Insufficient reasoning made a substantive review
of the acquittal impossible, forcing a re-trial. This creates delays and imposes additional burdens on the
justice system. Public confidence would be undermined if verdicts appear to be plucked out of thin air,
without any logical or legal foundation. It suggests arbitrariness and can fuel perceptions of corruption
or incompetence.

* Case 3: (Illustrative) Civil Service Commission v. Dismissed Public Servant (Judicial Review Application)

* Context: A public servant was dismissed following disciplinary proceedings, and the disciplinary
committee's decision, while confirming the dismissal, provided only very brief, conclusory remarks
without detailing the findings of fact or the application of disciplinary rules.

* Judiciary's Recognition: The High Court, in its judicial review capacity, found the decision of the Civil
Service Commission procedurally improper due to the inadequate reasoning. The court stressed that in
matters affecting employment and livelihoods, the reasons for dismissal must be clear, detailed, and link
the findings to the evidence presented. It emphasized that "reasons" mean more than just stating the
outcome; they require a logical exposition of the decision-making process.

* Effect on Appeal Outcomes and Public Confidence: The lack of detailed reasons led to the quashing
of the dismissal, potentially necessitating reinstatement or fresh proceedings, thereby prolonging the
dispute and creating uncertainty for both the employer and employee. This can lead to a perception that
administrative bodies are not held sufficiently accountable, and that due process is not rigorously
followed, thereby eroding public trust in the fairness of civil service disciplinary mechanisms.

In all these scenarios, the judiciary's insistence on reasoned decisions demonstrates a commitment to
upholding the integrity of both administrative and judicial processes. Insufficient reasoning, as seen,
directly impedes effective appellate review and significantly diminishes public confidence by fostering
perceptions of arbitrariness and a lack of accountability.

d) Statutory Mandate Requiring Published Reasons: Bolstering Procedural Justice and Accountability

The question of whether and how a statutory mandate requiring published reasons would bolster
procedural justice and accountability in Tanzania is a critical one, supported by both Tanzanian and
comparative jurisprudence. Currently, the requirement for reasons often derives from common law
principles of natural justice and is enforced through judicial review. However, a statutory mandate could
provide a more robust and consistent framework.

Arguments for a Statutory Mandate:

* Enhanced Predictability and Consistency: A statutory provision would remove any ambiguity regarding
the obligation to provide reasons across all relevant administrative and judicial bodies. This would lead
to greater predictability for citizens and more consistent application of the principle by decision-makers.
 * Improved Decision-Making: As discussed, the discipline of having to articulate reasons forces decision-
makers to be more diligent, thorough, and rational in their deliberations. A statutory duty would
formalize this requirement, potentially leading to better quality decisions ab initio.

* Streamlined Judicial Review and Appeals: A statutory mandate would simplify the process for judicial
review and appeals. Instead of arguing that reasons should have been given under common law
principles, the focus would shift to the adequacy of the reasons provided under the statute. This would
make challenges more direct and efficient.

* Increased Public Confidence and Transparency: A clear statutory duty would send a strong message to
the public that government and judicial bodies are committed to transparency and accountability. When
citizens know they are entitled to understand why decisions affecting them are made, their trust in the
system is likely to increase.

* Facilitates Oversight and Accountability: Legislatures, ombudsmen, and other oversight bodies would
have a clearer legal basis to demand and scrutinize reasons, thereby enhancing their ability to hold
administrative and judicial actors accountable.

* Deterrent to Arbitrariness and Corruption: The knowledge that decisions must be publicly justified can
act as a powerful deterrent against arbitrary decision-making, abuse of power, or even corruption.

* Alignment with International Best Practices: Many modern administrative law regimes globally have
statutory requirements for reasoned decisions, reflecting a broader trend towards good governance and
human rights. Tanzania would align itself with these best practices.

How a Statutory Mandate Could Be Implemented:

A statutory mandate could be implemented through a general administrative procedure act or specific
provisions within sector-specific legislation. Key elements should include:

* Scope: Clearly define which administrative and quasi-judicial bodies are covered. While courts already
generally provide reasons, administrative tribunals, licensing authorities, disciplinary committees, and
other public bodies are prime candidates.

* Form and Content of Reasons: Specify that reasons must be intelligible, adequate, and deal with the
substantial points raised. They should set out the findings of fact, the evidence on which those findings
are based, and the legal principles applied.

* Timelines: Prescribe reasonable timelines within which reasons must be provided after a decision is
made.

* Exceptions: Include carefully crafted exceptions, such as in cases involving national security,
commercial confidentiality, or where disclosure would genuinely prejudice an investigation. However,
these exceptions should be narrowly construed to prevent their abuse.
 * Consequences of Non-Compliance: Outline the legal consequences of failing to provide adequate
reasons, such as the quashing of the decision, remission for re-hearing, or disciplinary action against the
decision-maker.

* Publication: Mandate the publication of reasons, or at least their availability to affected parties, to
ensure transparency. This could involve online publication for significant decisions or providing written
reasons upon request.

Reference to Tanzanian and Compa