A
significant ruling by the Dar es Salaam University Students’ Organization
(DARUSO) Judicial Organ has provided clarity on allegations of constitutional
violations leveled against the Daruso President.
The
case, filed by Salumu Eliasa Reno, a student pursuing a Bachelor of Arts with
Education, alleged breaches of several provisions of the DARUSO Constitution
(2012, amended in 2024).
The accusations ranged from disproportionate
appointments to the President’s cabinet, bypassing consultation requirements, and
delegating duties improperly.
Central
to the claims was the assertion that the President violated Article 15(2)(e) by
appointing six ministers, one director, and one secretary from the School of
Education, sidelining representation from the university’s other academic
units.
This,
the petitioner argued, undermined the principle of proportional representation.
He further alleged a lack of consultation with the Vice President during these
appointments, as stipulated under Article 15(3), and claimed the President
delegated duties to unauthorized individuals in September 2024, a potential
breach of Article 16(7)(a).
Another
contentious issue was the absence of a person with disabilities in the cabinet,
which the petitioner argued contravened Article 8 on non-discrimination and
equal opportunity.
The
Judicial Organ convened the hearing on November 12, 2024, with the petitioner
and Vice President in attendance.
Despite
formal invitations, the President failed to appear or present evidence to
counter the allegations. The petitioner detailed his claims and submitted
evidence, while the Vice President provided clarifications and her perspective
on the matters raised.
After
a thorough review, the Judicial Organ ruled that the appointments did indeed
fail to reflect proportional representation.
The concentration of six cabinet members from
the School of Education, among 12 total ministers, was deemed a violation of
Article 15(2)(e).
The
Judicial Organ noted the university comprises numerous academic units, including
colleges, schools, and institutes, making such appointments inappropriate. “The
Daruso President needs to ensure balanced representation across all academic
constituencies to uphold the principles enshrined in the Constitution,” the
ruling stated.
However,
the allegation concerning the non-appointment of a person with disabilities was
dismissed.
The
Judicial Organ clarified that the Constitution does not mandate such
appointments, even though previous administrations had included individuals
with disabilities. “While commendable, appointing persons with disabilities is
a discretionary practice, not a constitutional obligation,” the Judicial Organ
stated.
The
accusations of bypassing consultation with the Vice President were similarly
dismissed. Testimony from the Vice President indicated that consultations had
occurred and that any misunderstandings were insufficient to constitute a
constitutional breach. “Consultation did take place, and minor
miscommunications cannot be equated to a violation of Articles 15(3) or
16(2)(a),” the ruling noted.
Regarding
the delegation of duties, the Judicial Organ found the petitioner’s evidence
lacking. The petitioner was unable to produce documentation, such as official
letters or emails, to substantiate his claims. “In the absence of corroborating
evidence, this allegation cannot stand,” the Judicial Organ concluded.
The
ruling carries significant implications for governance within Daruso. It
highlights the necessity of proportional representation in appointments, a critical
factor in fostering inclusivity and maintaining trust within the organization.
The
decision also underscores the importance of transparency, effective
communication, and adherence to constitutional requirements by leaders.
While
the Judicial Organ commended some emerging practices, such as including persons
with disabilities in the cabinet, it stressed that such practices must be
institutionalized rather than left to individual discretion.
The ruling serves as a precedent for future
administrations to prioritize balanced representation and engage in thorough
consultations, ensuring that the principles of good governance are upheld.
In
its closing remarks, the Judicial Organ advised the President to make
proportional representation a priority in future appointments and directed all
Daruso leaders to operate within the bounds of the Constitution.
“The
Constitution is the guiding framework for all Daruso activities. Leaders must
respect its provisions to maintain the integrity of the organization,” the
Judicial Organ emphasized.
The ruling, signed by Chairperson Benjamin
Thomas Bugomola and Secretary Jackson Elias Matemani, is final and binding
under Article 19(3)(b) of the Constitution.
The
decision has sparked discussions among students about the role of inclusivity
and equity in leadership. Many hope this ruling will serve as a wake-up call
for Daruso leadership to align its practices with the values of fairness,
accountability, and representation, ensuring that every member feels heard and
included in the organization’s decisions.