Dar es Salaam – The High Court of Tanzania Wednesday struck out a constitutional petition by the country’s bar association challenging a controversial police-imposed curfew that followed the October 29, 2025, General Election, ruling that the case was incompetent before the court.
A three-judge bench — Justices I.K. Banzi, F.H. Mtulya, and M.S. Mnyukwa — delivered the ruling in Dar es Salaam on March 11, 2026, dismissing the petition filed by the Tanganyika Law Society (TLS) without proceeding to the merits of the constitutional claims.
The court found the petition defective on three grounds: that one of its key prayers sought relief beyond the court’s jurisdiction; that adequate alternative means of redress existed under other laws; and that the supporting affidavit was tainted with a factual impossibility that rendered it legally worthless.
Dispute
The TLS filed the originating summons on November 12, 2025, naming the Inspector General of Police (IGP) as the first respondent, the Attorney General as the second, and the Commission for Human Rights and Good Governance (CHRGG) as the third.
The petition arose from an order issued by the IGP on October 29, 2025, at 5:00 PM, commanding residents, in what was vaguely described as a “Special Duty” (Kazi Maalum), to be indoors by 6:00 PM.
The order was issued just one hour before its enforcement, during a widely reported internet shutdown that had marred the post-election period, and was revoked by President Samia Suluhu Hassan on November 3, 2025.
READ MORE: Tanganyika Law Society Sues Tanzanian Government Over Post-Election Curfew
The TLS argued that the curfew had no backing in law and effectively usurped the President’s constitutional powers to declare a State of Emergency.
Violations alleged
The petition alleged breaches of a broad range of constitutional rights, including the right to dignity, the right to be heard, freedom from inhuman treatment, the right to life, liberty, freedom of movement, freedom of religion, and the right to work.
The TLS also documented the alleged killing of Advocate Peter Elibariki Makundi by police officers between 6:30 PM and 8:00 PM on the night the order was enforced.
Among the reliefs sought, the TLS asked the court to appoint a seven-member independent inquiry team — comprising a retired Chief Justice, representatives from the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the TLS, the Medical Doctors Association of Tanzania, the United Nations Human Rights Council, and the Commonwealth of Nations — to investigate events during the curfew and report within 14 days.
The petition also criticised the CHRGG for allegedly failing to “effectively, proportionately and properly perform its constitutional and legal function to protect human rights” between October 29 and November 3, 2025.
Objections
Before the petition could be heard on its merits, Senior State Attorney Stanley Kalokola and Principal State Attorney Ellen Gervas Rwijage raised two preliminary objections on behalf of the government.
READ MORE: High Court to Allow Tundu Lissu as Party in CHADEMA Civil Case
The first was that the petition contravened Section 8(2) of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, which bars the constitutional court from exercising jurisdiction where adequate means of redress exist under other laws.
Mr Kalokola argued that the petitioner’s complaints could be addressed through the Inquest Act for deaths, the Commission of Inquiry Act for investigations, and judicial review for challenging the legality of the IGP’s order.
He noted that President Samia had already established a Commission of Inquiry, published in Government Notice No. 13 of 2025 on November 20, 2025, to investigate the events of October 29.
The second objection was that the court had no jurisdiction to appoint a commission of inquiry, as that power is vested exclusively in the President under Section 3(1) of the Commission of Inquiry Act.
Ms Rwijage argued that granting the prayer would amount to the court assuming executive authority and violating the doctrine of separation of powers.
TLS pushes back
The TLS’s legal team — Advocates Mpale Mpoki, Jebra Kambole, Hekima Mwasipu, and Fredrick Msaki — argued that the petition raised genuine constitutional questions that could only be properly addressed by the constitutional court, not through judicial review.
On alternative remedies, the advocates contended that the routes suggested by the government were inadequate: the Presidential Commission of Inquiry’s mandate did not address constitutional rights violations; the President retained discretion to withhold its report from publication; and the commission could only make recommendations, not issue enforceable orders.
They also argued that the petition was filed on November 12, 2025, before the Presidential Commission was established on November 20, and, therefore, the commission could not be considered an alternative means of redress.
On the demand for a court-appointed inquiry, the TLS relied on Section 13 of the Basic Rights Act, which empowers the court to issue “any such order” as shall be necessary to enable citizens to enjoy their constitutional rights, arguing the legislature’s use of that phrase was deliberately broad.
Court’s reasoning
The bench addressed the three issues in turn, beginning with the court-appointed commission of inquiry.
The judges agreed with the government that the prayer was beyond the court’s mandate. Citing Section 3(1) of the Commission of Inquiry Act and Section 13(1) of the Basic Rights Act, the court held that “any such order” referred to judicial and constitutional orders that promote separation of powers, not orders that usurp executive functions.
The court was blunt in its assessment: “The petitioner is asking this Court to introduce a new and fresh practice unknown to this State and may not be found anywhere in the Commonwealth jurisdictions. That is why they had declined to cite any law to that effect or practice available in any other jurisdictions.”
READ MORE: High Court of Tanzania Awards Businessman Sh3.22 Billion for Unlawful Demolition of Residential Home
On the question of adequate alternative remedies, the court found that although the TLS had not disputed the existence of alternative remedies — only their effectiveness — that was insufficient to overcome Section 8(2) of the Basic Rights Act.
The judges held: “The effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the Commission of Inquiry formed under that section cannot be interpreted to mean that there is no adequate means of redress for the alleged contravention as directed by section 8(2) of the Basic Rights Act.”
The bench concluded that the petition was “prematurely filed,” as the TLS could have channelled its complaint through Section 3(1) of the Commission of Inquiry Act.
A fatal affidavit
The court also raised, on its own motion, a third and ultimately fatal problem: a glaring error in the supporting affidavit.
The affidavit was sworn and verified by TLS President Boniface Anyisile Kajunjumele Mwabukusi on November 12, 2025. In paragraph 9, however, the deponent stated that the IGP’s order was issued on “29th December, 2025” — a date that had not yet occurred when the affidavit was signed.
The TLS advocates sought to dismiss this as a typographical error, noting that October 29, 2025, appeared consistently throughout the rest of the pleadings. The government’s lawyers countered that facts in a verified affidavit are assumed to be true and can only be corrected by the deponent himself.
READ MORE: In a Landmark Ruling, High Court of Tanzania Strikes Down State-Imposed Religious Authority
The court sided with the government. Since Mr Mwabukusi had verified that all paragraphs were “true to the best of his knowledge,” the statement in paragraph 9 could not be dismissed as a mere typographical error.
The judges were pointed: “It can only be concluded that, what he stated in paragraph 9 is as good as a false statement, or such affidavit was not made on that date.”
Citing settled law that “an affidavit which is tainted with untruths is no affidavit at all,” the court held the affidavit was defective and incapable of supporting the originating summons.
The bench added a rebuke to the TLS’s legal team: “Much as suggested by Mr Mpoki, this is a very important case, in our view, such importance ought to be thought in the first instance during the preparation of documents by drafting competent pleadings.”
Orders
Having found the petition incompetent on all three grounds, the court struck it out entirely, with each party bearing its own costs.
The ruling leaves unresolved the substantive constitutional questions about whether the IGP’s curfew order was lawful and whether the rights of Tanzanians were violated during the five days it was enforced.
Those questions now remain before the Presidential Commission of Inquiry — the very body the TLS argued lacks the independence and legal authority to deliver adequate redress.
