Q&A – 11 January 2016
14 years and married in Tanzania
Is it true that in Tanzania a girl aged 14 years can get married? How does one address this at it conflicts with international best practice.
VB, Moshi
The answer, sadly so, is yes. In Tanzania, subject to permission being granted from Court where one can prove that there exists “special circumstances” which make the proposed marriage desirable, a girl of 14 years can be denied her rights to education and get married. Infact, even if the Court does not allow, then if the girl waits another one year, she can, without asking for Court permission get married. This is in line with section 13 of the law of marriage act which states that no person shall marry who, being male, has not attained the apparent age of eighteen years or, being female, has not attained the apparent age of fifteen years.
All action groups who are lobbying for this law to be amended have failed to convince the Minister in charge of women affairs to move this amendment in parliament, although all governments in power have agreed that the law needs to be amended. It is to be seen if the current ministry responsible for women affairs will manage to, at the least, quickly amend the minimum age of marriage, before overhauling the law entirely.
Not only does this conflict with international best practice, but it conflicts with the law of child act of Tanzania which is there to guarantee that children are not denied their rights to education. Married at 14 or 15 denies the girls their right to be educated.
Whilst researching this, a shocking statistic that we came across is contained in the 2014 Human Rights Watch report titled “‘No Way Out’: Child Marriage and Human Rights Abuses in Tanzania,” in that 4 out of 10 girls are married before their 18th birthday meaning that the practice of getting girls married early is much prevalent mainly for dowry.
Passenger carrying bomb look alike
If a passenger has a metal like device which is actually a jewelry kit but looks like a bomb, can a security officer deny boarding to such a passenger? Is this not pure harassment?
TK, Dar
You must appreciate that when it comes to flying, there is zero tolerance to taking any chances on security. Under the Civil Aviation (Security) Regulations, 2015, if a jewelry box looks like a bomb, maybe because of its shape, size or material built with, you are not allowed to carry it and will not be allowed to board with it. The law empowers the security officer to either ask you not to carry it, or she/he can destroy it.
Regulation 38 in clear terms provides for this in that (1) No person shall, subject to regulation 25, possess or have with him or her a prohibited or restricted items while – (a) in a security restricted area; (b) on board an aircraft; or (c) in an air navigation installation. (2) The prohibited items referred to in subregulation (1) include- (a) firearms or articles appearing to be firearms, whether or not they can be discharged; (b) nuclear, chemical or biological agents adapted, or capable of being used for causing injury to or incapacitating persons or damaging or destroying property; (c) ammunition and explosives; (d) articles manufactured or adapted to have the appearance of explosives, whether in the form of a bomb, grenade or otherwise; (e) articles made or adapted for causing injury to or incapacitating persons or damaging or destroying property; and (f) any other dangerous article or substance or other item prescribed by the Authority from time to time.
Bail in economic offences
Is it true that in an economic offence, just like in the charges of treason and murder, the accused cannot get bail? Is this not curtailing someone’s movement freedom of movement before even being convicted?
LR, Dar
We suggest that you first must refer to the Economic and Organised Crime Control Act and ensure that the offence is truly an economic offence as defined therein. Sometimes prosecutors tend to extrapolate minor offences into economic offences.
Coming back to your question, an economic offence is bailable unlike treason and murder which are never bailable. However the Court shall not admit any person to bail if– (a) it appears to it that the accused person has previously been sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding three years; (b) it appears to it that the accused person has previously been granted bail by a Court and failed to comply with the conditions of the bail or absconded; (c) the accused person is charged with an economic offence alleged to have been committed while he was released on bail by a Court of law; (d) it appears to the Court that it is necessary that the accused person be kept in custody for his own protection or safety; (e) the offence for which the person is charged involves property whose value exceeds ten million shillings, unless that person pays cash deposit equivalent to half the value of the property, and the rest is secured by execution of a bond; (f) if he is charged with an offence under the Dangerous Drugs Act.
Further, and this is subject to a lot of controversy, no person shall be admitted to bail pending trial, if the Director of Public Prosecutions certifies that it is likely that the safety or interests of the Republic would thereby be prejudiced. A certificate issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions shall take effect from the date it is fixed in Court or notified to the officer in charge of a police station, and shall remain in effect until the proceedings concerned are concluded or the Director of Public Prosecutions withdraws it.