The Applicants allege that the Tanzanian government violated the fundamental principles of the East African Community Treaty under Articles 6(d), 7(2) and 8(1)(c) specifically regarding good governance, democracy, and the rule of law during the general elections held on 29 October 2025. They contend that the electoral process was marred by systemic irregularities, including ballot stuffing, the disqualification of key opposition candidates, and the exclusion of election observers. Furthermore, the Applicants cite the suppression of civil liberties through an illegal curfew, a total internet shutdown, and the use of state force against protesters. Because Tanzanian law prevents domestic courts from overturning presidential results, the Applicants seek a declaration from the East African Court of Justice that the proceedings constituted a “non-election” and request an order for new elections that adhere to international standards.

The Applicants allege that the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents’ acts, omissions, and administrative policies including the imposition of excessive and discriminatory port charges, mandatory routing of transit cargo through designated inland container depots (ICDs), and systemic customs delays are unlawful infringements on Articles 6(d), 7(1), 75, 76, and 89 of The Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community, as well as the Common Market Protocol, the Customs Union Protocol, and international protections under UNCLOS.

The Applicants specifically contend that by applying these restrictive measures and “other charges of equivalent effect” to goods transiting to and from Uganda through the Port of Mombasa, the Respondents have created unjustifiable non-tariff barriers, engaged in discriminatory practices against a land-linked Partner State, and caused significant inflationary pressure on essential commodities for Ugandan consumers. Furthermore, the Applicants allege that the 4th Respondent has failed in its mandatory duty to monitor and ensure Treaty compliance.

The Applicant alleges that the Respondent’s actions on 31 October 2025 of unilaterally stopping the salary and allowances of the Applicant, removing his profile from the parliamentary website, and deactivating his official email are unlawful infringements on Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of The Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community as well as the fundamental and operational principles of the Community. The Applicant specifically contends that by carrying out this withdrawal of benefits and entitlements without following the established rules or procedures for the removal of a Member of Parliament’s immunity or benefits, the Respondent has violated the principles of the rule of law, good governance, accountability, and the protection of human rights.

The Applicant alleges that the Respondent’s actions from 29 October 2025 to 4 November 2025 of executing a total, nationwide internet shutdown are unlawful infringements on Articles 6(d), 7(2), and 8(1)(c) of The Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community, as well as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The Applicant specifically contends that by disrupting access to mobile data, websites, and online platforms without public notice or lawful authorization, the Respondent paralyzed economic, social, and civic life including essential services such as banking, health, and education and restricted the fundamental rights of citizens to freedom of expression and access to information during a critical general election period.

The Applicants allege that the Respondent’s actions and omissions between 2017 and 2025 specifically the large-scale military deployment of the Burundian National Defence Forces (FDNB) into the Democratic Republic of Congo are unlawful infringements on Articles 5(1), 5(2), 6(b), 6(d), 7(1), 7(2), 8(1)(c), 124, 127, and 129 of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community, as well as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Great Lakes Pact.

The Applicants specifically contend that by enforcing a comprehensive military blockade and siege on Banyamulenge villages in South Kivu beginning on 16 October 2025, the Respondent has engaged in “humanitarian asphyxiation,” using famine as a weapon, and facilitating ethnic-targeted violence through coordinated attacks with allied militias. They further allege that these actions, which include aerial bombardments and the destruction of schools and health centers, constitute a breakdown of the rule of law and a violation of the Community’s fundamental principles of peace, security, and good neighborliness.

The Applicant alleges that the Respondent’s actions on 7 October 2025 of arbitrarily dismissing the Applicant’s Bill of Costs in Nairobi High Court Misc. Application No. 213 of 2018 are unlawful infringements on Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of The Treaty for Establishment of The East African Community as well as the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct and Article 16 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers. The Applicant specifically contends that by dismissing the said Bill of Costs for “want of prosecution” despite the Applicant having already filed written submissions and condemning the Applicant unheard without service of a Notice to Show Cause, the Respondent’s judicial officer acted without jurisdiction, with bias, and in a corrupt manner.

The Applicant alleges that the Respondent’s actions of prosecuting, convicting, and sentencing him via the Muha Court of Appeal in Case No. RPA 2066/RPA 2075 are unlawful infringements on Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of The Treaty for the Establishment of The East African Community. The Applicant specifically contends that the judicial process involved flagrant violations of Burundian domestic law including the Constitution, Penal Code, and Code of Criminal Procedure by confirming an arbitrary 20-year detention and imposing massive financial restitutions without legally admissible evidence.

The Applicant alleges that the Respondents’ actions and omissions in 2025 of imposing Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs), unpredictable border closures, customs delays, and unreasonably high cargo tariffs are unlawful infringements on Articles 5, 6(b), (e) & (f), 7(1), 8(1), 27(1), 30, 74, 89, 90, 151, and 152 of The Treaty for Establishment of The East African Community as well as the Fundamental and Operational Principles of the Community, the Common Market Protocol, and the Customs Union Protocol. The Applicant specifically contends that by failing to ensure continuous and predictable transit for Uganda-bound goods through the ports and corridors of Kenya and Tanzania including the imposition of duplicative licensing and storage penalties the Respondents have violated international law, including the UNCLOS guarantees for landlocked states, and created unjustified restrictions on regional trade.

The Applicant alleges that the Respondent’s actions and/or omissions between 29 September 2025 and 27 November 2025 of failing to honor a binding Settlement Agreement signed on 24 July 2025 which admitted liability for unpaid services rendered by 32 hospitality entities are unlawful infringements on Articles 5(3)(g), 6(d), 7(2), 8(1)(a), (b) & (c), and 8(4) of The Treaty for Establishment of The East African Community as well as the Fundamental and Operational Principles of the Community. The Applicant specifically contends that by refusing to remit the agreed installments totaling USD 27,397,769, the Respondent has breached the doctrine of Pacta Sunt Servanda and violated the principles of the rule of law, good governance, accountability, and transparency.

The Applicant alleges that the Respondent’s actions on 18 September 2025 of delivering the Supreme Court of Uganda judgment in Hassan Basajjabalaba & 5 Others v. Legal Brains Trust (LBT) Ltd, Constitutional Appeal No. 4 of 2020—which set aside the judgment of the Constitutional Court and condoned alleged illegalities—are unlawful infringements on Articles 6(d), 7(2), and 8(1)(c) of The Treaty for Establishment of The East African Community as well as the Fundamental and Operational Principles of the Community. The Applicant specifically contends that by wrongly limiting the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court over contested questions of fact and failing to scrutinize the use of a fabricated court order and secret “letters of comfort” to deplete the national treasury, the Respondent has violated the principles of the rule of law, good governance, accountability, and the right to a corruption-free society.