50 without distinction of any kind such as race, ethnic group, color, sex, language, religion, political or any other opinion, national and social origin, fortune, birth or other status.” 11 7 . The Applicants argued that though the law prohibiting independent candidature applies to all Tanzanians equally, its effects are discriminatory because only those who are members of and are sponsored by political parties can seek election to the Presidency, Pa rliament and Local Government positions. The Applicants referred the Court to the jurisprudence of the African Commission in Communication No 211/98 Legal Resources Foundation v Zambia Fourteenth Activity Report (2000 – 2001) at paragraph 64 where the Com mission held inter alia that any “ measure which seeks to exclude a section of the citizenry from participating in the democratic processes is discriminatory and falls foul of the Charter” . 11 8 . The Respondent maintained that the law prohibiting independe nt candidature is not discriminatory as it applies equally to all Tanzanians. 11 9 . It appears that the Applicants are alleging discrimination stemming from the above mentioned constitutional amendments between Tanzanians belonging to political parties o n one hand, and Tanzanians not belonging to political parties to the other, as the former can contest presidential, legislative and local elections while the latter are not so permitted. In that understanding, the right not to be discriminated is related t o the right to the equal protection by the law as guaranteed by Article 3.2 of 51 the Charter, which stipulates that “[e]very individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law”. In the light of Article 2 of the Charter above quoted, the alleged d iscrimination might be related to a distinction based on “political or any other opinion”. To justify the difference in treatment between Tanzanians, the respondent has, as already mentioned, invoked the existence of social needs of the people of Tanzania based, inter alia, on the particular structure of the State (Union between Mainland Tanzania and Tanzania Zanzibar) and the history of the country, all requiring a gradual construction of a pluralist democracy in unity. The question then arises whether t he grounds raised by the Respondent State in answer to that difference in treatment enshrined in the above mentioned constitutional amendments are pertinent, in other words reasonable, and legitimate. As the Court has already indicated, those grounds of ju stification cannot lend legitimacy to the restrictions introduced by the same constitutional amendments to the right to participate in the Government of one’s country, and the right not to be compelled to be part of an association (supra, paragraphs 107 – 11 and paragraphs 114 - 115 ). It is the view of the Court that the same grounds of justification do not legitimise the restrictions to not be discriminated against and the right to equal ity before the law. The Court therefore concludes that there has been v iolation of A rticle s 2 and 3( 2 ) of the Charter .