Dar es Salaam – The disappearance of former Tanzanian ambassador and outspoken government critic Humphrey Polepole has escalated to the nation’s highest judicial level after his legal team, led by Peter Kibatala, filed a Criminal Appeal in the Court of Appeal of Tanzania on November 17, 2025.
This action is a direct and urgent response to the High Court’s ruling on October 24, 2025, in which Justice S.M. Maghimbi dismissed Polepole’s application for a writ of Habeas Corpus, the judicial remedy sought to determine the legality of his detention.
In a Certificate of Most Extreme Urgency filed with the Court of Appeal, Mr Kibatala underscored the critical nature of the situation, stating that the appeal “involves the whereabouts of the Appellant, who was abducted since October 16, 2025, and has not been seen or heard from to date. The Appellant’s life may depend on the urgent determination of this Appeal.”
The appeal challenges the High Court’s decision on eight principal grounds, with the central argument being that the original court failed to properly assess circumstantial evidence and, in effect, set an evidential bar that was impossible to meet in an abduction case.
Specifically, the Memorandum of Appeal contends that the High Court erred by “raising the evidential bar to that of beyond a reasonable doubt,” a standard typically reserved for criminal conviction, rather than accepting proof on a “more likely than not/Preponderance of Probability” standard, which is appropriate for determining unlawful detention.
Furthermore, Polepole’s legal team alleges that the High Court failed to uphold its “noble role as the ultimate arbiter and guardian of citizens’ rights.” The original suit named five respondents, including the Inspector General of Police, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney General, and two senior police commanders in the Dar es Salaam Special Police Zone.
In her October 24, 2025, ruling, Justice Maghimbi acknowledged the “peculiar nature” of the case, noting that the respondents had denied having custody of Polepole. Ultimately, the Judge found that the evidence presented by the applicant’s lawyers—which consisted of affidavits, hearsay statements, and photographic annexures—amounted to “mere suspicions” and “speculations.”
The court concluded this evidence was insufficient to meet the burden of proof required to establish that the respondents were, in fact, detaining Polepole, thus finding that the legal team had “failed to convince the court to exercise its discretion.”
While the appeal has been formally lodged, the date for the hearing is yet to be set by the Court of Appeal. Mr Kibatala explained to The Chanzo that, unlike the High Court, the Court of Appeal “sits in Sessions,” requiring them to wait for the Chief Justice to review the emergency petition.
The Chief Justice has the authority, granted by the Court of Appeal’s Rules of Procedure, to quickly schedule a panel of three judges given the extreme urgency certified by the Appellant’s counsel.
READ MORE: Humphrey Polepole: Former Ambassador and Government Critic Reportedly Abducted
“We are waiting to hear from them,” Mr Kibatala stated. The judicial outcome will be closely watched by political figures and human rights observers, given the high-profile nature of the case involving the missing former ambassador.
