Arusha – The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights on March 6, 2026, delivered judgments in three cases against the United Republic of Tanzania, ordering the country to amend constitutional provisions that bar courts from scrutinising the conduct of electoral bodies and the results of presidential elections.
The rulings, handed down at the Court’s seat in Arusha, found that the impugned provisions breach the rights to equality before the law and to a fair hearing as guaranteed by the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
In two of the three cases, the Court issued binding orders requiring Tanzania to amend its constitution within defined timelines and to publish the full judgments in both English and Swahili.
The third case — filed by the Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC) and human rights advocate Liberatus Mwang’ombe — was declared admissible, with the Court reserving its decision on the merits for a future sitting. All three applications were filed in 2020 and were decided at the Court’s 80th Ordinary Session.
Claims
The first set of rulings arose from two consolidated applications — Nos. 040/2020 and 043/2020 — filed by Abdul Omary Nondo, Deusdedit Valentine Rweyemamu and Paul Revocatus Kaunda, three Tanzanian nationals who challenged provisions of the country’s electoral laws before the Court.
The second ruling, in Application No. 046/2020, was brought by six members of the Alliance for Change and Transparency (ACT-Wazalendo): Ado Shaibu, Ezekiah Dibogo Wenje, Omar Musa Makame, Dorah Seronga Wangwe, Enock Weges Suguta and Kassim Ali Haji.
READ MORE: Tanzanian Lawyers Bring Election Dispute to East African Court
The ACT-Wazalendo applicants alleged violations of their civil and political rights in the lead-up to, during and immediately after Tanzania’s October 2020 general elections.
The LHRC and Mwang’ombe, in Application No. 041/2020, challenged the legal framework that effectively prevents prisoners, remand detainees and Tanzanians living in the diaspora from voting in presidential, parliamentary and local government elections.In all three cases, the United Republic of Tanzania was the respondent.
Objections
Tanzania contested the Court’s jurisdiction and the admissibility of the applications across all three cases.
On jurisdiction, Tanzania argued in the Nondo case that the alleged violations predated the entry into force of the Protocol establishing the Court, and that the Court therefore lacked temporal jurisdiction.
The Court dismissed this, reiterating that its temporal jurisdiction runs from the date the Protocol entered into force — not from the date a state deposits its individual declaration — and that it retains jurisdiction where violations are of a continuing nature.
In both the Ado Shaibu and LHRC cases, Tanzania argued that the matters raised fell purely within the jurisdiction of its national courts. The Court rejected this, holding that it is empowered to examine whether domestic laws comply with the standards set out in the Charter and other ratified human rights instruments.
READ MORE: African Court Orders Tanzania to Amend Election, Criminal Justice Laws
On admissibility, Tanzania raised the failure to exhaust local remedies as a bar to all three applications. The Court found this objection partly well-founded in the Nondo case, declaring inadmissible the claims relating to the composition of the Electoral Commission, eligibility criteria for commissioners, the President’s power to remove commissioners, and the prohibition on commissioners joining political parties — all on the ground that the applicants had not approached domestic courts on those issues.
However, the Court admitted the claim relating to Articles 74(12) and 119(13), finding that those ouster clauses themselves stripped litigants of any available remedy, making exhaustion of local remedies impossible.
In the Ado Shaibu case, the Court similarly admitted only the claim regarding the bar on challenging presidential election results, as no domestic remedy existed for that purpose. It was unpersuaded by the applicants’ general assertions that a climate of fear in the country had prevented them from pursuing other claims domestically.
In the LHRC case, the Court found the application admissible in part. It held that while the applicants were required to challenge the National Elections Act before domestic courts, they could not be required to pursue a constitutional petition under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act (BRADEA), as that remedy was unavailable to organisations and individuals who could not demonstrate direct victimhood.
Rulings on the merits
On the merits in the Nondo case, the Court examined whether Articles 74(12) and 119(13) — which bar any court from inquiring into anything done by the INEC or ZEC in the exercise of their functions — violated the right to equality before the law under Article 3(2) of the Charter and the right to have one’s cause heard under Article 7(1)(a).
Drawing on its earlier landmark ruling in Jebra Kambole v. Tanzania, in which it had struck down a similar provision shielding presidential election results from judicial challenge, the Court found that while the impugned provisions nominally applied to all citizens, their practical effect was not uniform.
The provisions imposed a disproportionate burden on individuals seeking legal redress for electoral grievances, depriving them of the ability to challenge electoral decisions before any judicial body. Tanzania offered no reasonable justification, necessity or proportionality for this restriction in a democratic society.
READ MORE: Tanzania’s Electoral Commission Disqualifies Opposition Candidate Again Despite Court Order
On the right to a fair hearing, the Court was emphatic. The absence of judicial scrutiny of the INEC and ZEC, it held, “creates a risk of unchecked electoral irregularities, thereby undermining” the integrity of the electoral process.
The Court held that both Articles 74(12) and 119(13) violated Articles 3(2) and 7(1)(a) of the African Charter.
In the Ado Shaibu case, the Court found — consistent with its Kambole precedent — that Article 41(7) of Tanzania’s Constitution, in so far as it bars courts from inquiring into the election of a presidential candidate declared winner by the Electoral Commission, violates Articles 1 and 7(1) of the Charter.
The provision had remained in the Constitution since 1977 and continued to operate as a live, ongoing violation.
Two judges — Justice Tchikaya and Justice Anukam — appended a joint separate opinion arguing that the Court should have separated its consideration of the alleged physical violence during the 2020 elections from the electoral law violations, though this did not alter the outcome.
Orders
In the Nondo case, the Court ordered Tanzania to amend its constitution by repealing Articles 74(12) and 119(13).
It further ordered the government to publish the judgment in English and Swahili on the websites of the Tanzanian judiciary and the Ministry of Constitutional and Legal Affairs within three months, keeping the publications accessible for at least one year.
READ MORE: Tanzanian President’s Election Probe Faces High Court Challenge Over Claims of Bias and Illegality
Tanzania was also directed to report to the Court on implementation within twelve months, with further reports every six months until the Court is satisfied with compliance.
In the Ado Shaibu case, the Court ordered Tanzania to take all necessary constitutional and legislative measures, within one year, to amend Article 41(7) to align it with the Charter.
The government was ordered to publish the judgment in English and Swahili within six months and to report on implementation within six months, with subsequent reports every six months thereafter. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
LHRC welcomes the rulings
The Legal and Human Rights Centre, itself a party to one of the cases, welcomed all three rulings in a public statement issued on March 6, 2026.
The LHRC described the decisions in the Nondo and Ado Shaibu cases as landmark affirmations that electoral bodies and presidential election results must be subject to judicial oversight in a democratic society.
The organisation noted that the orders requiring constitutional amendments within defined timelines placed a clear and binding obligation on the government to act, and called on the authorities to comply fully and promptly.
In its own case, the LHRC expressed satisfaction that the Court had upheld its standing and declared the application admissible, paving the way for a substantive ruling on the rights of prisoners, detainees and the diaspora to vote.
