I had an opportunity to peruse Dr. Wilbard Slaa’s article on the same topic. After reading, it was clear that there was a need to take action. Getting an analytical aspect seemed the right thing to do.
Tanzania has lost its momentum in human rights, which once set it apart from many of its sub-Saharan counterparts. We used to be a beacon of deference to the right to live, the right to express views without fear of retaliation, and the right to challenge authorities when they exert themselves beyond their bounds.
The 2024 TIS law was part of the erosion of those rights, aiming to deter citizens’ constitutional right to question and hold leaders accountable who misbehave. This is my contribution to the discussion: What went wrong with the once-peaceful nation of Tanzania?
Why fear, intimidation and extrajudicial toolboxes are deployed to curb public accountability? This is my perspective on the root causes and how to address them. It all started with the rewriting of the laws, and it must end there. As Kiswahili adage counsels:
“Mwiba uingiliapo ndipo utokeapo.”
1. Expansive Immunity Provisions.
– Absolute Legal Shield:
Section 19(1) of the TIS Act grants officers immunity for “any act or thing done or omitted to be done in good faith” during the performance of their duties. This replaces the previous limited immunity clause, creating near-total protection from prosecution.
– Historical Context of Abuse:
Intelligence services have been repeatedly accused of politically motivated abductions, including:
– The enforced disappearances of Ben Saanane and Azory Gwanda.
– The 2017 assassination attempt on opposition leader Tundu Lissu.
– Arbitrary arrests of opposition figures, such as MP Bashe.
2. Absence of Detention Framework.
– Legal Black Holes:
Unlike police procedures governed by Police General Orders (PGO), the TIS Act:
– Omits designated holding facilities.
– Lacks custody transfer protocols.
– Provides no detainee rights framework.
– Procedural Vacuum:
The law contains no equivalents to criminal procedure requirements like:
– Mandatory statement recording within 4 hours.
– Judicial oversight timelines.
– Access to legal counsel is guaranteed.
3. Unregulated Coercive Powers.
– Weaponisation Without Oversight:
While authorising weapons and restraints, the Act fails to establish:
– Storage and deployment protocols.
– Use-of-force continuum guidelines.
– Incident reporting mechanisms.
– Independent review processes.
– Accountability Deficit:
No provisions exist for:
– Body cameras or surveillance audits.
– Civilian complaint boards.
– Forensic documentation requirements.
4. Presidential Monopolisation of Control.
– Direct Executive Command:
The Act transfers intelligence oversight from ministerial authorities to direct presidential control, creating:
– Potential weaponisation against political opponents during elections.
– Elimination of inter-institutional checks.
– Centralised operational authority.
– Election Security Concerns:
Opposition leaders have protested TIS’s mandated role in “protecting presidential candidates” during elections, noting this enables surveillance of campaign strategies.
5. Suppression of Press Freedom.
– Draconian Secrecy Enforcement:
– Section 16(1) penalties increased from a Sh500,000 fine to “minimum Sh20 million fine and/or 15-year imprisonment” for revealing intelligence personnel’s identities.
– Expands the definition of “protected information” without judicial review mechanisms.
– Historical Context:
This amendment targets investigative journalists documenting intelligence abuses, continuing Tanzania’s trend of suppressing press freedom through the use of national security laws.
6. Erosion of Democratic Institutions.
– Elimination of Parliamentary Oversight:
– No requirement for legislative intelligence committee.
– Zero statutory reporting obligations to the National Assembly.
– Budgetary appropriations without operational transparency.
– Judicial Exclusion:
The Act contains no provisions for:
– Judicial warrants for operations.
– Court review of detention cases.
– Habeas corpus mechanisms.
7. Silenced Reform Efforts.
– Exclusionary Legislative Process:
– The bill was circulated secretly before parliamentary submission.
– Opposition requests for public consultation were ignored.
– Dismissed Expert Recommendations:
Proposed safeguards, such as South Africa’s Parliamentary Intelligence Oversight Committee (PIOC) model, were rejected without consideration.
Comparative Accountability Deficits.
| No. | Accountability Mechanism. | Police Framework. | TIS Act 2024. |
| 1.0 | Operational Oversight. | Inspector General of Police, Police Commission. | Police Ethics Unit, an independent commission. |
| 2.0 | Detention Facilities. | Designated police stations. | No designated facilities. |
| 3.0 | Use-of-Firearms Regulation. | Not established. | No regulations. |
| 4.0 | Complaint Mechanisms. | Police Ethics Unit, independent commission. | No civilian recourse. |
| 5.0 | Judicial Review. | Regular court oversight. | Explicitly excluded. |
Recommendations for Reform.
1. Legislative Safeguards.
– Establish a parliamentary intelligence oversight committee with security-cleared members.
– Require judicial warrants for arrests lasting more than 24 hours.
– Codify detainee rights in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
2. Operational Reforms.
– Designate published detention facilities with CCTV monitoring.
– Implement use-of-force reporting protocols with independent review.
– Create a TIS disciplinary unit with civilian representatives.
3. Accountability Restoration.
– Repeal Section 19(1) immunity provisions
– Reduce Section 16(1) penalties to pre-2024 levels
– Establish an inspector general for intelligence services
4. Democratic Safeguards.
– Prohibit intelligence involvement in electoral processes.
– Require annual public threat assessments.
Implement a security sector white paper process.
Conclusion: The High Cost of Silence.
The TIS Act 2024 institutionalises what human rights advocates term “legalised lawlessness” – creating a security apparatus liberated from Tanzania’s constitutional order while simultaneously criminalising scrutiny of its operations.
This legislative framework directly contradicts Tanzania’s purported investment climate reforms and undermines President Samia’s economic modernisation agenda. As opposition leader Zitto Kabwe warned, the law represents “a body blow to our young and vulnerable democracy” that will inevitably deter foreign investment through institutionalised unpredictability.
The international community, civil society, and legal associations must prioritise challenging this legislation through constitutional petitions, parliamentary initiatives, and sustained advocacy. Without urgent reform, Tanzania risks cementing a parallel governance structure operating beyond state control – the definitive antithesis of democratic accountability and the rule of law.
The “bitter fruits” of silence, as referenced in the article, have already begun to manifest in increased disappearances and contracting civic space, demanding immediate corrective action before irreversible damage occurs to Tanzania’s social and governance fabric.
Read more analysis by Rutashubanyuma Nestory
