376. Despite reform efforts to build capacity for the lower courts and prosecutorial staff to improve the administration of justice, stakeholders in districts as far apart as Kagera, Ruvuma, Arusha and Kigoma confirmed to the CRM that demand for justice far outstrips supply. With the onset of many land-related disputes and conflicts, the demand on lower level courts to dispense justice under the rule of law was never greater in Tanzania. In Arusha, the CRM was informed that land-related conflicts have resulted in serious injuries, loss of property, and deaths, in many instances. Justice delayed or denied in relation to land disputes only adds to citizens’ discontent about the full enjoyment of property rights under the rule of law in Tanzania. 377. As previously noted, the CRM was informed that a dangerous phenomenon of “mob justice” is gaining ascendancy in Tanzania because justice is not administered in a timely manner at the lower courts.57 As noted elsewhere, another issue of particular concern to many Muslim stakeholders was the absence of Kadhi Courts, omitted under the constitution.58 378. The CRM also heard from various stakeholders both in Dar es Salaaam and in the Arusha, Kigoma, Kagera and Ruvuma districts that corruption has reached a peak in the court system at first instance, district and high level courts. The National Anti-Corruption Strategy and Action Plan (NACSAP I & II) is the framework for coordinating anti-corruption institutional activities and initiatives in Tanzania. NASCAP I, implemented from 2000-2005, registered some progress by establishing PCCB offices in all districts nationwide and did strengthen some oversight institutions. There were also improvements in revenue collection but the strategy targeted mainly state actors, like the MDAs, and neglected demand-side actors like civil society organizations. Lessons from this phase fed into the Phase II design. 379. NASCAP II (2006-2010) has eight components: (i) combat corruption by addressing its root causes; (ii) strengthen anti-corruption mechanism at all MDAs; (iii) introduce systems of integrity accountability and transparency in Local Government Administration (LGA); (iv) mainstream and empower private sector into anti-corruption activities; (v) mainstream and empower civil society organisations (CSOs) and non-state actors into anti-corruption processes; (vi) raise awareness of anti-corruption; (vii) build synergy between NACAP and Legislative, Judiciary Integrity Programmes; and, (viii) Enhance the capacity of PCCB, GGCU, and the Director of Public Prosecution to deal with corruption, and to manage and implement NASCAP [Mukukuta, 2010: 97]. 380. The CRM notes that NASCAP II results have so far been implementational, with very limited impact in terms of changes in attitude and behaviour over corruption. Several pieces of legislation were passed, including the Public Procurement Act (2007), Prevention and Combating Corruption Act, (2007), Political Parties Financing Act (2010), Public Leadership Code of Ethics Act (2010), the establishment of integrity committees in ministries and MDAs, Client Charters and Complaint Handling Desks in all MDAs, regions and LGAs. The CRM cautions that while the enactment of legislation and establishment of institutions may be necessary, this does not in of itself address structural and institutional causes of corruption. The CRM suggests that Tanzania would have to look deeper for the structural incentives that make corruption easily permissible within the public and private sectors. 381. Although there was considerable progress under the LSRP, the CRM takes the view that a lot more still remains to be achieved before Tanzania can claim to have a robust legal sector. Such as sector would supply efficient and effective judiciary public services commensurate with the demands of the changing and dynamic economic and political environment of present-day Tanzania’s Government and people. Increased urbanisation comes with its own socio-cultural pressures and concomitant exposure to crime and other social behaviours that need further of law students in the law schools of Tanzania; deployment of newly recruited state attorneys to 204 districts; and, training in investigation and human rights skills for district officers. 57 Throughout consultations with stakeholders in Arusha, Kegera, Ruvuma and Kigoma districts, citizens alluded to the widespread perception that lower courts are prone to corruption and do not prosecute or even remand suspected criminals after they have been turned over to law enforcement agents. Accused suspects are found in the streets, only to be mobbed to death by wananchi simply because it is believed they would have been left to go scot free. Interactions with other stakeholders from the judiciary labelled the phenomenon as “mob injustice”, implying that those who perpetrate such acts are lawless citizens who violate the law by taking the law into their own hands. This perception gap separating the judiciary from wananchi is indicative of a lack of awareness of due process with regard to the law in Tanzania. The abject lack of access to courts and the prosecution system’s reputation as corrupt encourage wananchi to take matters into their own hands. 58 Many Muslims feel that when it comes to civil law matters, they have no formal protection under the law because customary marriages are not recognized by the formal courts. Many stakeholders advocate for the harmonisation of customary and formal laws, especially in civil matters. 87