Dar es Salaam – Tanzania’s High Court has declared that the government’s recognition of a single Muslim organisation as the supreme authority for all Muslims in the country is unconstitutional, a landmark decision that bolsters religious freedom and the right to association.
In a significant ruling delivered on December 24, 2025, the High Court of Tanzania found that the Registrar of Societies and the Administrator-General had acted unconstitutionally by compelling all Muslim organisations to seek approval from the National Muslim Council of Tanzania (BAKWATA) for registration and incorporation.
The court declared this practice “null and void,” affirming that BAKWATA is not the legitimate supreme body for all Muslims in Tanzania.
The case was brought by a group of ten prominent Muslim scholars and leaders, including Sheikh Prof Hamza Mustafa Njozi and Sheikh Ponda Issa Ponda, who argued that the government’s actions violated their fundamental constitutional rights to equality, freedom of religion, and freedom of association.
The court’s decision is a major victory for religious pluralism and a rebuke of the state’s interference in the internal affairs of religious communities.
Central issue
The central issue before the court was whether the conduct of the Registrar of Societies and the Administrator-General, in effectively anointing BAKWATA as the sole gatekeeper for Muslim organisations, was a violation of Articles 13, 19, and 20 of the 1977 Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania. These articles guarantee equality before the law, freedom of religion, and freedom of association, respectively.
The petitioners argued that the government’s requirement for a “reference letter” from BAKWATA as a precondition for registration was an unlawful and discriminatory practice. They contended that this policy effectively forced all Muslims, regardless of their denomination or affiliation, to submit to the authority of BAKWATA, an organisation whose own constitution, they argued, is not inclusive of all Muslim sects.
The court’s ruling delved deeply into the history of BAKWATA, uncovering a troubling narrative of state intervention in religious affairs. The three-judge panel, comprising Justices E. Y. Mkwizu, A.A. Mbagwa, and H.R. Mwanga, meticulously traced the organisation’s establishment to 1968, a period marked by the suppression of existing Muslim organisations.
Court’s findings
According to the court’s findings, before BAKWATA came into being, two prominent Muslim organisations existed in Tanzania: the East African Muslim Welfare Society and the Tanzania Council of East African Muslim Welfare Society.
On December 20, 1968, these organisations were declared unlawful societies by the government through Government Notice No. 434. Their assets were subsequently vested in the Administrator-General through Government Notice No. 435, published on the same date.
Notably, the court observed that the reasons for their deregistration were never stated in the relevant Government Notice, raising questions about the legitimacy of the government’s actions.
Following the dissolution of these two organisations, BAKWATA was established. According to Certificate of Registration No. 5512, BAKWATA was registered under the Societies Ordinance on December 17, 1968, just three days before the dissolution of the earlier Muslim organisations.
Six months later, on June 9, 1969, its registered trustees were incorporated by the Administrator-General and issued with Certificate of Incorporation No. 517.
Shortly after the incorporation of BAKWATA’s trustees, the government, through Government Notice No. 169 published on June 28, 1969, vested the properties of the erstwhile East African Muslim Welfare Society and the Tanzania Council of East African Muslim Welfare Society in BAKWATA.
This vesting order, effective from June 30, 1969, transferred substantial assets to the newly formed organisation, cementing its position as the dominant Muslim body in the country.
Court’s dismay
In what proved to be one of the most revealing aspects of the case, the court expressed profound dismay at the failure of the government authorities to provide basic information about BAKWATA’s founding. The judges wrote: “We eagerly searched for the first Constitution of BAKWATA, to no avail.”
READ MORE: As We Raise the Freedom Torch Again on Mount Kilimanjaro, Are We a Nation of Hope or Despair?
This led the court, on December 18, 2025, to summon the parties and order the respondents to supply the court with the first Constitution of BAKWATA and the register of its founding members at the time of its registration in 1968.
The court’s frustration was palpable in its judgment: “To our dismay, the respondents, including the 1st and 2nd Respondents, who registered BAKWATA and incorporated its registered trustees (4th Respondent), could not provide the Court with the first Constitution, nor were they able to submit even a register or list of the founding members. They brought a copy of the 1984 Constitution, which, however, was of no assistance in answering our query.”
This failure to produce foundational documents raised serious questions about BAKWATA’s legitimacy. The court noted that although BAKWATA, as a society organisation, had existed since 1968, its first Constitution was only enacted in 1999, more than three decades after its establishment.
“To crown it all, the founding members are not indicated in either the Constitution itself or any other document,” the judges observed. “This buttresses the suspicion that none of the Tanzanian Muslims founded BAKWATA, the 4th respondent, contrary to what it claims.”
A constitution that excludes
The court’s examination of BAKWATA’s 1999 Constitution, Revised Edition 2018, revealed provisions that fundamentally undermined its claim to be an umbrella organisation for all Muslims in Tanzania. The judges found that Articles 80(9) and 83(e) of the BAKWATA Constitution restrict leadership positions to Muslims who profess the Ahlu Sunna Waljamaa denomination, specifically the Sunni-Shafi’i branch.
In a particularly pointed passage, the court noted: “From the above provisions, in particular Articles 80(9) and 83(e) of the BAKWATA Constitution, it is evident that leadership in BAKWATA is not open to all Muslims. It is open only to Muslims who profess the Ahlu Sunna Waljamaa denomination, specifically the Sunni-Shafi’i branch.”
The court took pains to educate readers about the diversity within Islam, noting that the religion has two major sects, Sunni Waljamaa and Shia, and that the Sunni sect, which is predominant in East Africa, has four denominations or schools of thought: Abu Hanifa, Al Shafi’i, Ahmad ibn Hambal, and Malik.
The judges cited the book The Four Imams: The Lives and Teaching of their Founders by Muhammad Abu Zahra, Dar Al-Taqwa, as well as an article by Hassan Mwakimako titled The Supreme Council of Kenya Muslims (SUPKEM): Jostling for Representativeness among Muslims in Kenya.
READ MORE: Tanzanian Government Lifts Ban on Glory of Christ Tanzania Church After Six Months
Quoting from Mwakimako’s article, the court emphasised: “A Muslim means any person professing Islamic faith of any school or sect … introducing any other element in this definition will result in untold complexities for the courts, Kenyans and lawyers.”
The court then delivered a devastating assessment of BAKWATA’s claim to represent all Muslims: “BAKWATA claims to be an umbrella of all Tanzanian Muslims and Muslim organisations. However, according to Article 83(e) of its Constitution, a Muslim cannot become its leader unless he professes in Sunni Waljamaa-Shaafiy. Indeed, the above-quoted provisions substantiate the petitioners’ contentions that BAKWATA, the 4th respondent, is not an umbrella of all Muslims and Muslim Organisations in that it accommodates only one Islamic sect, that is, Sunni Waljamaa-Shaafiy. This tells it all that BAKWATA not only excludes Shia but also leaves out three other Sunni denominations, namely, Abu Hanifa, Ahmad ibn Hambal, and Malik. Such an organisation cannot be said to be a legitimate representative of all Tanzanian Muslims.”
Court’s reasoning
The court conducted a meticulous review of the relevant laws, including the Societies Act and the Trustees’ Incorporation Act, searching for any provision that would justify the government’s requirement for a reference letter from BAKWATA. The judges declared: “We were unable to locate any provision mandating the 1st and 2nd respondents to compel the petitioners to obtain reference letters from the 4th respondent.”
The court found that Section 17 of the Trustees’ Incorporation Act, which references a “supreme authority” of religious organisations, applies solely for the purpose of monitoring the election of new trustees and office bearers, not for registration under the Act.
The judges emphasised that this provision “presupposes that each religious body has its supreme authority established under its Constitution. It does not mandate the 1st and 2nd respondents to appoint or designate a supreme authority for any religious organisation.”
The court also examined specific evidence of the government’s unconstitutional conduct. In a letter dated July 15, 2020, with reference number SA. 22073/17, the Registrar of Societies refused to accept a reference letter from Baraza Kuu la Jumuiya na Taasisi za Kiislamu Tanzania (the Supreme Council of Islamic Organisations and Institutions of Tanzania), which had been formed in 1993 as an alternative umbrella organisation open to all Muslim organisations.
Instead, the Registrar insisted on a letter from BAKWATA, stating in Swahili: “Mnaelekezwa kuwasilisha barua kutoka BAKWATA na sio Baraza kuu Tanzania” (You are directed to submit a letter from BAKWATA and not Baraza Kuu Tanzania).
Similarly, in a letter dated December 19, 2022, with reference number ADG/T.I/5608/5608, the Administrator-General required trustees of a Muslim organisation to specifically designate BAKWATA as their supreme authority in the organisation’s constitution.
READ MORE: High Court of Tanzania Dismisses Defamation Suit Against Zitto Kabwe in IPTL Saga
The court noted that the Registrar of Societies and the Administrator-General had not denied compelling the petitioners to obtain reference letters from BAKWATA or requiring them to designate BAKWATA as the supreme authority in their organisations’ constitutions.
Given this admission, and given that BAKWATA’s Constitution excludes other denominations, the burden of proof shifted to the respondents to demonstrate that BAKWATA was founded by representatives of all Tanzanian Muslims.
The court stated: “Having established that the 4th Respondent is open for only one denomination, Sunni Waljamaa-Shaafiy, and that it was not founded by all Tanzanian Muslims, it was incumbent on the respondents to prove otherwise. Admittedly, the respondents were expected to adduce evidence showing that the founding members were representing all Tanzanian Muslims to counter the petitioners’ contention, but they failed to do so.”
Court’s orders
In its final orders, the court made several declarations. First, it declared that BAKWATA is not the legitimate supreme Muslim organisation or the recognised umbrella organisation for all Muslims and Muslim organisations in Tanzania.
Second, it declared that the conduct and conditions imposed by the Registrar of Societies and the Administrator-General, compelling Muslim organisations to obtain reference letters from and accept BAKWATA as their supreme authority, are violative of Articles 13(1), (2) and (3), Article 19(1) and (2), and Article 20(1) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977, and are therefore unconstitutional, null and void.
Third, the court directed the Registrar of Societies, the Administrator-General, and the Attorney General to take all necessary measures to ensure that, in the exercise of their respective duties and in the application of the law, no conditions are imposed on the registration of societies or the incorporation of trustees of Muslim organisations and institutions that violate Articles 13(1), (2), and (3); 19(1) and (2); 20(1); and 29(1) of the Constitution.
The court, however, dismissed the petitioners’ challenge to certain regulations that grant BAKWATA representation on the boards of the Vocational Education and Training Authority (VETA) and the National Education Advisory Council.
The court accepted the government’s argument that in these instances, BAKWATA’s representatives were appointed as stakeholders in the education sector, not as representatives of the Muslim community. The court found that the regulation concerning VETA, Government Notice No. 133 of 1981, was no longer in force, having been repealed by the Vocational Education and Training Act No. 1 of 1994.
As for the National Education Advisory Council, the court was persuaded that BAKWATA’s Secretary-General “is appointed by virtue of being a stakeholder in the education sector, rather than as a representative of Muslim organisations.”
“Great freedom”
Speaking to journalists after the ruling, Sheikh Ponda Issa Ponda, who serves as Secretary of Shura ya Maimamu Tanzania (Council of Imams Tanzania) and is a prominent defender of civil and human rights, hailed the decision as a landmark victory for religious freedom.
“This judgment is an official notice to all Government authorities that when Muslims go to request any service, they should not be told that they must bring a letter from BAKWATA to receive that service,” he said. “All Muslim authorities and individual Muslims have now become free in the establishment and ownership of their institutions and societies. This is a great opportunity, a very great freedom.”
Sheikh Ponda announced that a conference would be organised to explain the importance of the judgment to the wider Muslim community. “Let me just say on behalf of those Muslims who brought this case to court that we will organise a very important conference where lawyers will come to explain the importance of this judgment,” he said. “It is the first major judgment to be issued in our country, Tanzania.”
The High Court’s decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for the relationship between the state and religious organisations in Tanzania. It sets a powerful precedent for the protection of religious freedom and the right of association, and serves as a reminder that the state must remain neutral and impartial in its dealings with all religious communities.
