A while back the Commissioner for Labour issued a notice prohibiting agents, notably advocates and non-advocate immigration consultants from processing Work Permits (including submission and follow up) for their clients at the Labour Commissioner’s Office in Dodoma, Tanzania. Instead, employers were now tasked with processing Work Permits for their prospective non-Tanzanian employees.
On the other hand, the Immigration Department, which now operates through the electronic visa and residence permit services portal (Tanzania e-Immigration Online Portal), also took the same position albeit slightly differently, by not recognising advocates as agents for the applicants unless they present letters of engagement/instructions issued by their clients, authorising them to act on their behalf.
It is understood, among other reasons that, the position taken by the Commissioner for Labour was largely based on the many incidences of malpractice which were mainly blamed on "non-advocate immigration consultants" or better known informally in Kiswahili as “makanjanja” or “vishoka” in the course of processing Work Permits for their clients, and hence, adversely affecting the provision of these services.
Prior to making a case as to why advocates should freely be permitted to carry out these services, it is important to shed light on how non-advocate immigration consultants operate in the broader scheme of things.
This group of service providers are completely unregulated by any professional bodies, as opposed to their counterparts. Many lack the requisite legal knowledge on labour and immigration related matters, thereby providing incorrect and possibly misleading advice. These individuals are said to provide wrongful information in order to get their applications approved. More so, they tend to offer immigration services for reduced prices – in the recourse, unfairly affecting the informal price structures which are in the market for such services.
The above are the most likely reasons which caused the Commissioner for Labour to prohibit agents from providing Work Permit related services to their clients, but in our opinion, this prohibition should not have extended to advocates who are well qualified to provide such services.
Why? Immigration related services are legal by nature, as a result, advocates are better placed to provide these services with the aptitude required. Advocates are regulated by; (1) the High Court of Tanzania, whereby any Judge thereof may suspend any advocate temporarily, (2) the Advocates’ Committee (made up of a High Court Judge, a representative from the Attorney General’s Chamber and a practicing advocate nominated by the Tanganyika Law Society’s Council), and (3) the Tanganyika Law Society. Thereby, on account of many eyes scrutinising their professional work and etiquette, it makes a good case why advocates should be allowed to continue processing Work Permits for their clients, unlike non-advocate immigration consultants who are unregulated.
Further, advocates always have formal instructions from their clients to act on their behalf, and quite a good number of advocates have professional indemnity insurance, which adds more weight on the argument why they should be allowed to serve their clients in this area of service.
In this regard, the decision to station advocates in the same pool as non-advocate immigration consultants and deny them the right to provide services to their clients should be reviewed. Currently, the load is too heavy on the employers seeking to process Work Permits for their non-Tanzanian employees, as they have to do so themselves, which role, inherently, is adequately exercised by advocates, under instructions from their respective clients.
Note: This is not a legal opinion and the contents hereof are not meant to be relied upon by any recipient unless our written consent is sought and explicitly obtained in writing.
