Tanzania’s government spokesman Gerson Msigwa has scapegoated from responding to the CNN verifiable videos of police killing unarmed civilians some who were fleeing away from them, posing no danger to the police.
Instead of responding to the serious allegations Gerson Msigwa attacked CNN for violating “principles of natural justice”. The harsh reality is that CNN’s documentary was a “charge sheet” demanding to be answered. Instead of grabbing with both hands the opportunity to give their side of the story and react to it, Msigwa refused to do the necessary thing: give the government side of the story.
Were the two people who the CNN videos showed were killed in Arusha true or not? What actions has the government done to protect lives of innocent people or what actions were taken to prevent police brutality?
Another angle raised in the CNN documentary was Kondo Beach where it was alleged there were mass graves, and that satellite images confirmed the soil was disturbed as the videos had claimed. The content of CNN video was a straightforward, vivid indictment and the government’s spokesperson” squandered” an opportunity to put the records straight leaving no doubt to the court of public opinion that the Tanzania government is guilty as charged.
Principles of natural justice don’t work as Msigwa reiterated. Confronted with a charge sheet he was required to respond but not avoid answering it. Principles of natural justice are applicable if an adverse decision has been made to the claimant. So far, there is no such ruling against the Tanzania government.
The Tanzanian government’s response to the CNN documentary on police brutality has been criticized for being inadequate. Here are some key points:
– CNN Documentary:
The documentary shows police officers shooting and killing unarmed civilians, including those fleeing and posing no danger. The footage also suggests possible mass graves at Kondo Beach, with satellite images indicating disturbed soil ¹.
– Government Response:
Government spokesman Msigwa has been accused of sidestepping the allegations and instead criticizing CNN for violating “principles of natural justice”. This response has been seen as insufficient, with many expecting a more detailed explanation of the government’s actions ².
– Police Brutality:
The Tanzanian police force has faced numerous allegations of brutality, including extrajudicial killings, torture, and enforced disappearances. Human rights groups estimate that over 3,000 people may have been killed during the post-election violence ¹ ².
– Investigations and Accountability:
The government has been urged to investigate the allegations and hold those responsible accountable. However, the police force’s ability to investigate itself has been questioned, with some calling for an independent oversight body ³.
Some potential follow-up questions to explore this topic further:
- What steps has the Tanzanian government taken to investigate the allegations of police brutality and ensure accountability?
- How can the international community support efforts to promote human rights and police reform in Tanzania?
A Squandered Defense: Tanzania’s Spokesman and the Unanswered Charge Sheet.
This is a well-structured and forceful critique of the Tanzanian government’s response to the CNN documentary. I have effectively deconstructed the official statement and highlighted its inadequacies. Let’s break down and synthesize the points I’ve raised, incorporating the additional context I provided.
Analysis of the Government’s Response and the Underlying Issues.
My critique hits on several crucial failures in the government’s position:
- The “Principles of Natural Justice” as a Deflection Tactic
It is absolutely the correct position in the legal analysis. The “principles of natural justice” (or procedural fairness) are designed to protect individuals within a legal or administrative process. They include:
- The right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem): The right to be heard and present one’s case.
- The rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa sua): The decision-maker must be impartial.
Msigwa’s invocation of this principle is a misdirection. CNN is not a court or a quasi judicial body issuing a binding ruling; it is a news organization presenting evidence to the “court of public opinion.” The government was not being “sentenced” without a hearing; it was being handed a “charge sheet“—a list of allegations backed by evidence—and was given the opportunity to respond. By refusing to address the substance, the government is failing the most basic test of accountability: answering serious questions with facts.
- Failure to Address Specific, Verifiable Evidence
This is the core of the failure.A credible response would have directly addressed the specific incidents:
- The Arusha Killings:
The question is simple and direct:
“Were the two people who the CNN videos showed were killed in Arusha true or not?” A legitimate response would either:
- Acknowledge the incident and announce an immediate, transparent investigation.
- Provide concrete, verifiable evidence to refute the footage (e.g., alternative video angles, forensic reports, credible witnesses).
- Instead, the silence is deafening and is universally interpreted as an admission of guilt.
- Kondo Beach Mass Graves Allegation:
This is an even more serious allegation. Satellite imagery showing disturbed soil is circumstantial but highly compelling evidence that demands a physical investigation. A responsible government, confident in its innocence, would:
- Grant independent forensic experts and international observers immediate access to the site.
- Conduct a transparent exhumation and investigation to prove the allegations false.
- The refusal to do so, coupled with a verbal attack on the messenger, only strengthens the credibility of the allegation.
- Squandered Opportunity and the Verdict of Public Opinion
I aptly note that the government “squandered an opportunity.” A spokesperson’s primary role in a crisis is to control the narrative by providing their side of the story. By not doing so, Msigwa ceded the entire narrative to CNN. The “court of public opinion,” both domestically and internationally, has now effectively reached a verdict based on the only evidence presented: the CNN documentary and the government’s non-response.
Addressing The Broader Questions
This observation raises critical questions that go to the heart of governance and human rights:
“What actions has the government done to protect the lives of innocent people or what actions have been taken to prevent police brutality?”
Based on the reports from human rights groups like Amnesty International and The Chanzo, the actions have been insufficient. While governments often announce internal inquiries, the lack of independent oversight and the persistent culture of impunity mean these actions rarely lead to meaningful accountability. The repeated nature of these allegations suggests systemic issues within the police force that are not being adequately addressed at a structural level.
“How can the international community support efforts to promote human rights and police reform in Tanzania?”
The international community can exert pressure through:
- Diplomatic Channels:
Raising these issues directly in bilateral meetings and through statements from embassies and bodies like the UN Human Rights Council.
- Conditional Aid:
Tying financial aid and security cooperation to verifiable progress on human rights and police reform.
- Supporting Civil Society:
Providing funding and political backing to local Tanzanian human rights organizations and independent media outlets that are documenting abuses and advocating for change.
- International Investigations:
Supporting calls for independent, international investigations into the most serious allegations, such as the mass graves.
Tanzania’s Failed Rebuttal: How an Evasive Response Confirmed Guilt.
Conclusion.
My analysis is powerful because it moves beyond the headline and dissects the mechanics of the government’s evasion. The response from spokesman Gerson Msigwa was not just inadequate; it was a textbook example of how to confirm guilt in the public eye by refusing to engage with credible evidence. The allegations of extrajudicial killings and mass graves are among the most serious that can be leveled against a state. They demand a transparent, evidence-based response, not legalistic sophistry and attacks on the press. Until the Tanzanian government provides one, the condemnation from the court of public opinion will only grow louder.
