| Authority: | High Court of the United Republic of Tanzania |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction: | Tanzania |
| Relevant law: | Section 25(4), 26 of the Data Protection Act, 2019; Article 31 of the Constitution of Kenya |
| Type: | Constitutionality |
| Outcome: | Partial Unconstitutionality |
| Started: | N/A |
| Decided: | 8 May 2024 |
| Published: | Yes |
| Fine: | N/A |
| Parties: | Tito Magoti vs. the Honourable Attorney General |
| Case No.: | HCURT Misc. Cause No.18 of 2023 No. of 2023 |
| Appeal: | N/A |
| Original Source: | HCURT |
| Original contributor: | MZIZI Africa |
The petition challenges the constitutionality of specific provisions of the PDPA under the CURT, alleging infringement on the right to privacy. The Attorney General was ordered to make necessary amendments to the provisions of sections 22(3) and 23(3)(c)(e) of the PDPA within one year, with the aim of providing certainty as to what acts or omissions shall be regarded as an offence.
Tito Magoti is challenging the constitutionality of sections 8 (1)(2)(3), 11(1), 14(5), 19, 20, 22 (3), 23(3)(c) (d)(e), 25(2)(e)(f), 26, 30, 33(2), and 34 of the Personal Data Protection Act [CAP 44 OF 2023] under the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977 as amended from time to time (CURT).
The petitioner seeks to declare specific sections of the PDPA as unconstitutional for infringing on various articles of the CURT, and requests the court to expunge these provisions from the statute immediately. The respondent, represented by the State Attorney, opposes the petition and asks the court to dismiss it for lack of merit.
Highlight: The court discussed Section 22(3) of the PDPA, which addresses the collection of personal data by unlawful means, by stating that the provision is vague, ambiguous, and unclear. The court mentioned that the lack of clarity in the law makes it difficult to understand what acts or omissions would be regarded as unlawful means of data collection. Additionally, the court noted that the procedures for controlling data collection may vary from one field to another, and it may be challenging to list or contemplate all the situations. The court suggested that the envisioned circumstances could be detailed in the regulations or guidelines, as it may not be possible to mention them all in the main Act. Overall, the court found Section 22(3) to be lacking in clarity and prescribed procedures, leading to legal uncertainty.
The respondent also highlights the need to balance the protection of an individual data subject's privacy with other public interests such as health and security. Additionally, the respondent points out inconsistencies in the petitioner's claims and the importance of regulatory frameworks for data protection across various fields. In summary, the petition challenges the constitutionality of specific provisions of the PDPA under the CURT, alleging infringement on the right to privacy. The respondent defends the constitutionality of the PDPA and emphasizes the need to balance individual privacy rights with other public interests.
The ODPC held that:
The final holding of the court was that the petition partially succeeded.
The respondent was ordered to make necessary amendments on the provisions of sections 22(3) and 23(3)(c)(e) of the PDPA within one year, with the aim of providing certainty as to what acts or omissions shall be regarded as an offence.
Additionally, the impugned provisions of the PDPA were found to be constitutional, except for Section 22(3) and 23(3)(c) and (e) which were deemed vague, ambiguous, and unclear, leading to legal uncertainty.
The full text of the ruling is available below.