Dodoma — THE Director of Public Prosecution (DDP), Dr Eliezer Feleshi, has said the move by the Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC) to take Premier Mizengo Pinda to court is illogical.

The DPP made the remarks at a news conference here on Wednesday evening, at the end of a three-day meeting of public prosecutors, regional crimes officers and other police officers.

He said that what the premier said was aimed at those who defy the government and the due process of being arrested. The DPP stressed that Mr Pinda has not broken any law of the country by just saying what he said.

He said that from what he heard the premier said in the National Assembly, LRHC have no legal basis to open criminal charges against the prime minister.

Dr Feleshi said that the premier had only explained on several legal measures that can be taken on any citizen, noting that just as any citizen has rights, they also have responsibilities.

He said that what the premier was expounding on was the rights of people to assembly and to air one's views and the whole concept of people's freedoms. However, he stressed, there are other laws of the land that must also be adhered to such as the police act which stipulates that for one to ask people to assembly, he or she should report to the local police first.

He added that the law provides that if people gather without reporting to the police and something goes wrong, the

gathering becomes illegal assembly and the police have to act to disperse such a gathering. "What should be expected if people start going amok and disturb the peace during an illegal gathering?" he queried.

Meanwhile, FAUSTINE KAPAMA reports in Dar es Salaam that the Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC) and the Tanganyika Law Society (TLS) petitioned the High Court to challenge the statement given in Parliament by Prime Minister Mizengo Pinda allowing law enforcement organs to beat civilians violating law.

In the case of its own kind, the two persons, who are petitioners in the matter, are challenging as unconstitutional the premier's statements, directives and orders that the law enforcers should use force against civilians.

Mr Pinda and the Attorney General are respondents in the matter.

It is alleged that on June 20, this year, when exercising his duties as Prime Minister of the United Republic of Tanzania, Mr Pinda openly and unconstitutionally gave a directive and ordered the law enforcement officers to beat up anyone defying orders.

They allege that in administration of criminal law in respect of public tranquility, statements or orders given by high profile public leaders like Mr Pinda were deemed enforceable by law enforcement agencies like the police.

"To the petitioners' understanding, the police would take this as a lawful order from their superior which will be in a form of arbitrary and extrajudicial beating and torture of an otherwise innocent person contrary to the protection provided by the Constitution," they state.

According to the petitioners, they were aware of Article 100 (1) of the Constitution of United Republic of Tanzania, as amended from time to time and the provision of Section 5 of the Parliamentary Immunities, Powers and Privileges Act.

Such provisions, they stated in the petition document, gives powers and immunity to Members of Parliament (MP) and freedom of opinion in the National Assembly and the petitioners have noted that Article 100 (2) subjects all MPs under the constitutional provisions.

The petitioners allege that the statements by the Prime Minister were unconstitutional for contravening Articles 12, 13, 14, 26, 27 and 30, among others, of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977, as amended.

They claim further that the position by the premier contravened principals of human dignity, equality before the law, promotion of Rule of the Jungle, violation of a right to fair hearing, abuse of power by law enforcers and violation to right of presumption of innocence.

The petitioners are asking the court to declare that the Constitution does not protect those who violate it and therefore, Article 100 (2) and Section 5 of the Parliamentary Immunities, Powers and Privileges Act subjects the Parliamentary Immunity to respect and preserve the Constitution.

They further request, "The provisions of Article 100 (1) and 100 (2) of the Constitution or any other law whatsoever should not be used as a shield to condone impunity to violators whomsoever of the Constitution."

Furthermore, the petitioners are seeking for declaration that the statements, directive and order by the Prime Minister goes contrary to the constitutional principles of human rights, rule of law and accountability and are thus, null and void.

In addition, the petitioners are asking the court to order that the statements by the Prime Minister should be permanently deleted from the relevant records of the National Assembly and that be ordered to publicly denounce his statements, directives and orders regarding the matter.