President Samia Suluhu Hassan’s decision to establish an Inquiry Commission is a positive step and could help heal the nation from the pain experienced since October 29, 2025. However, the structure of the commission has problems, first because it lacks proper balance in representation based on the nature of the crisis itself.

The terms of reference are another separate issue; it is better to wait. There is also the question of whether the report will be kept secret or made public for everyone to read and analyze.

The decision to form the commission signifies that action has begun, as the President promised when she addressed Parliament in Dodoma on November 15, 2025. But more importantly, the names of the members, their professions, and the positions they previously held in Government create a conflicting picture when compared to the idea of forming an Inquiry Commission.

When a nation faces a major crisis like this one, citizens expect a truth-seeking body, one that reflects the feelings and interests of all sides involved in the conflict, especially those directly affected, or even neutral individuals capable of questioning wrongdoing by any party, or challenging the Government’s official position.

To the surprise of observers, instead, the appointments are filled almost entirely with retired senior Government officials: judges, ambassadors, military officers—including the former Minister of Defense, Stergomena Tax, who was in office when the crisis occurred.

The fact that the appointment press release avoided mentioning her recent ministerial role, instead only noting her former position as SADC Secretary-General, suggests even the author of the press release was uncomfortable stating that just last week she was still the Minister of Defense of the United Republic of Tanzania!

Public Trust

For most of their lives, these commission members served in Government and were even appointed by Presidents at different times. How can they be separated from the leadership system that is being blamed for repression?

READ MORE: Tanzania Government Announces 8-Member Team to Investigate Events Around October 29 Election Protest

How can citizens at large be convinced they will be treated fairly when the Government is accused of involvement in what happened, particularly since some security organs are alleged to have carried out the killings? These retirees may indeed be honest and respected by the public, but how will criticisms be avoided that this is merely a “cover-up commission” designed to shield wrongdoing?

Typically, election-related violence affects ordinary citizens the most—youth, activists, opposition party supporters, and civil society groups. Excluding them from the commission already signals their marginalization, despite being the ones who suffered in the crisis.

It will not be easy for the commission to convince the public that it represents the interests of everyone harmed by the violence that began on October 29, 2025, and that it will act fairly in ensuring the truth is uncovered.

Representation could have been broadened to include human rights defenders, religious leaders, businesspeople, independent journalists, medical professionals, university scholars, lawyers, and youth.

Outdated Perspectives

Looking at the list of appointees, one might think it is a committee to safeguard the interests of retirees. It is true, retirees have a wealth of experience and wisdom, but they may also carry outdated perspectives or mindsets that no longer match the challenges of 2025–2030 and beyond.

Political crises require listening to people capable of challenging existing ideas, notions, and opinions so that the nation can move forward, not individuals who shy away from asking difficult questions or seeking new understanding in the face of the crisis.

READ MORE: Tanzania After October 29, 2025: Will Reconciliation Without Empathy Work?

Evaluating the commission lineup, it appears political loyalty is being sought more than truth-seeking or transformative answers.

When carefully assessed alongside commissions formed in other countries for reconciliation, it becomes clear that what is happening is more about the Government protecting itself than healing a nation that has endured political turmoil.

To achieve genuine reconciliation, people must speak openly and truthfully, be included through their social groups, and be free of fear, secrecy, or manipulation.

In 1995, when South Africa formed its Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the appointed Chair was the late Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a figure respected within and beyond South Africa.

That commission lasted until 2002 and succeeded in restoring stability in Africa’s wealthiest nation, followed by additional steps thereafter. We are not saying Tanzania faces challenges as severe as those in South Africa, but it is always wise to borrow conflict-resolution methods that succeeded elsewhere.

For example, Rwanda’s Gacaca courts (2001–2012). Likewise, reconciliation commissions in Sierra Leone (1999–2004), Kenya (2008–2013), and Burundi, whose commission formed in 2014 is still ongoing.

These are just a few examples from Africa, but in each case, the structures revealed much broader representation.

Weak Legitimacy

The formation of the commission announced by President Samia is important, but filling it with individuals who could be described as “Government insiders” weakens its legitimacy. This could have been avoided.

Healing requires trust, and trust comes from participation by diverse social groups without favoritism. This could have been named the Commission of Distinguished Retirees After Long Government Service, but not a commission capable of delivering justice freely. And will their report genuinely reveal everything the public already knows, and be published openly?

Moreover, Tanzania does not have a good history with commissions formed by the President. The Criminal Justice Commission appointed in 2023 completed its work, but the full report has never been made public, except for a summary prepared for submission to the President.

READ MORE: Our Tiananmen Moment: Tanzania’s Cry for Justice Amid the October Massacres

Fundamentally, the owner of a commission’s report is the one who formed it, not the citizen with complaints. If the owner is displeased with it, the report can remain shelved. Clearly, if at least 25 percent of that commission’s recommendations had been implemented, some of the problems now being discussed—including those involving security organs—might not have occurred.

And that is our fundamental problem: whenever challenges arise, we assess and learn where we went wrong. But after learning, we fail to implement the recommendations to prevent the challenge from recurring, even in a different form.

The writer of this article requested anonymity. These are the writer’s own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of The Chanzo. Do you want to publish in this space? Contact our editors at editor@thechanzo.com for further inquiries.