It all began in a political meeting where it was alleged MP Waitara Mwita, and 2 others had accused the permanent secretary for law and constitutional affairs, Eliakim Chacha Maswi, that during his tenure as director of PPRA, had exploited his office to amass wealth.
Having been aggrieved by adverse allegations, Eliakim Chacha Maswi asked Waitara Mwita and 2 others to refute in public the allegations. Waitara Mwita and others refused, which led to a libel suit of which the High Court has awarded Eliakim Chacha Maswi Tshs 6 Bill or approximately $ 2.3 Mill!
These two individuals will be fighting for the parliamentary seat of Tarime Rural. Waitara Mwita is an incumbent MP who has fallen out with his superiors within CCM. The fallout is so intense and hostile to the extent that the minister for law and constitutional affairs, Damas Ndumbaru, has been taking rounds campaigning in Tarime Rural for his subordinate in Eliakim Chacha Maswi.
So, when the High Court awarded defamation damages of Tshs 6 Bill to Eliakim Chacha Maswi, ordered the 3 defendants to recant their false allegations in public, and offset court fees of the plaintiff some have peeked a political retaliation at works.
My analysis of the Tsh 6 billion libel award against Tarime Rural MP Waitara Mwita & 2 others is as follows:
⚖️ 1. Context of the Legal Judgment.
– The case referenced of Eliakim Chacha Maswi vs Mwita Mwikwabe Waitara & 2 Others (Civil Case 533412 of 2023), cited in the Appropriation Act, 2016 documentation.
– The extraordinarily high penalty (Tsh 6 billion, ~$2.3 million USD) is precedented by snobbish libel suits in Tanzania but still raises immediate concerns about proportionality. It appears on the surface harsh, unconscionable and arbitrary. That doesn’t mean the plaintiff should have walked away with nothing but with much less than the award he was doled out.
🗽 2. Freedom of Expression and Political Repression.
– Tanzania’s human rights environment has deteriorated significantly since 2016, with documented restrictions on free speech, assembly, and political expression. Reports highlight a pattern of using legal mechanisms (including defamation suits) to silence critics. However, in 2004, the High Court awarded Salim Ahmed Salim a record defamation damages worth Tshs 1 Bill, which was equivalent to $ 1 Mill. The dispute was later resolved in and out of court settlement.
– The 2022 Human Rights Report notes that “civil and political rights suffered the most” under Tanzania’s current governance framework, with specific mention of shrinking space for dissent.
⚠️ 3. Broader Legal and Human Rights Concerns.
– Amendments to BRADEA:
The Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act (BRADEA) was amended to shield high-ranking officials (President, Vice President, Chief Justice, etc.) from lawsuits, redirecting cases to the Attorney General. Ironically, this protection does not extend to MPs like Waitara, exposing them to aggressive litigation. Recently, the Appeals Court struck out those laws and gave the government 12 months to rectify them. However, such laws indicate the executive’s determination to shun public accountability.
– Politicization of Judiciary:
Studies cited in the human rights reports indicate “politicization of human rights matters” and a judiciary increasingly influenced by executive interests. This raises questions about judicial independence in politically sensitive cases. Even the retired Chief Justice, Ibrahim Hamis Juma, saw thee wisdom to clear his name against what he called: “meeting with government officials to discuss cases against the government.”
He claimed he never discussed the outcome of cases with government officials. However, his predecessor, Hon. Chief Justice, Augustine Ramadhan, conceded that while deciding the case of “Independent candidates” the decision to overturn the High Court ruling that had struck out constitutional Articles that outlawed “Independent candidates” was under severe political duress. He complained the Appeals Court was pressured by the executive to issue that decision.
What the then Chief Justice Augustine Ramadhan was reticent about was whether his decision to vie the presidency in 2015 through CCM was due to a promissory note CCM gave him had he overturned the right of Independent candidates.
What we know is that he had sidestepped a three justice panel to form a seven-justice panel contrary to the Court of Appeal Rules. The rights of Litigants to a review were irretrievably stolen by his overzealousness. The then chief justice Augustine Ramadhan died I’m retirement without revealing what exactly happened.
Under this covert miasma, we have every reason to doubt “judicial independence”, notwithstanding what the retired Chief Justice Prof. Ibrahim Hamis Juma had asserted during the swearing-in ceremony of his successor.
– Chilling Effect:
Such disproportionate penalties risk paralyzing legitimate political criticism. As noted in the research, Tanzania’s legal framework contains “restriction clauses which take away the whole essence of the Bill of Rights“.
💰 4. Socioeconomic Implications.
– The fine amount is wildly disproportionate to Tanzania’s economic reality:
– GDP Per Capita: ~$1,200 USD.
– MP Salary:
Estimated Tsh 15–20 million/month.
- The applicant, Eliakim Chacha Maswi, didn’t suffer anything to warrant such a “wild, wild west” compensation, as he is still holding a senior public post despite a false report against him.
– Context:
The fine equals approximately 300–400 years of an MP’s salary, effectively imposing financial life imprisonment!
– This aligns with documented tactics to bankrupt opposition figures through legal means, as noted in human rights analyses.
📉 5. Patterns of Repression.
– The case fits a documented trend:
– 2016–2021:
Human rights declined under President Magufuli, with “unknown assailants” targeting critics.
– “Post-2021”:
Despite President Samia Suluhu Hassan’s promises of “institutionalization of the 4Rs”, reports indicate the “status of human rights continued deteriorating,” with leaders turning “authoritarian and brutal towards their own people“.
💎 Key Takeaways.
The Tsh 6 billion libel suit against Waitara Mwita exemplifies the “systemic weaponization of laws to suppress political dissent” in Tanzania. While libel laws legitimately protect reputations, this penalty’s severity—against a backdrop of shrinking civic space—suggests political retribution rather than justice. It underscores the urgent need for:
– Judicial reform ensuring proportionality.
– Repeal of BRADEA clauses creating legal impunity for elites.
– Alignment of defamation laws with international free speech standards. The government has twelve months to comply with the Appeals Court ruling, albeit recent comments of the Speaker of the House, Tulia Ackson, appear to indicate disappointment and dissatisfaction with that ruling. Past experiences guide me to suspect the refurbished laws will look like the struck-out ones.
International human rights stakeholders should monitor this case as a bellwether for Tanzania’s sinking democratic trajectory.
- Damages ought to be calculated based on the actual amounts of taxes they pay to the government. This will fumigate against arbitrariness and make defamation awards based on reality rather than at the moment the awards exceed one’s income by several folds, defeating the very intent of deterring harming others without rewarding them for just being attacked.
- Similarly, the judicial intents of deterrence take a hit when rulings are perceived as retaliatory, attending to other purposes not even conspicuously considered during the proceedings.
What are remedies for Waitara Mwita & Others to extricate themselves from this painful ruling?
Waitara Mwita has several potential remedies to address the Tsh 6 billion libel suit judgment. Here is a structured analysis of actionable strategies:
⚖️ 1. Legal Appeals and Judicial Review.
– Challenge Proportionality:
Argue that the penalty violates constitutional protections against excessive fines, citing Tanzania’s Bill of Rights. The sum (equivalent to ~$2.3 million USD) is grossly disproportionate to Tanzania’s GDP per capita (~$1,200) and an MP’s salary (Tsh 15–20 million/month), making it a *de facto* life sentence.
The African Court of Justice shows the way:
The African Court on Human and Peoples Rights in December 2021, had ordered the Tanzanian government to pay a former NGO director $99,500 for illegally expelling him from the country in 2014.
The court, sitting in Dar es Salaam, awarded Anudo Ochieng Anudo $63,500 as compensation for salary income lost.
He was also awarded $5,640 as damages for material prejudice caused by the loss of his sawmill business in Tanzania and damage to two vehicles and one motorcycle that he owned before being deported in September 2014.
The court also awarded him $30,380 for moral prejudice suffered by himself and his family members—his parents and four children—as indirect victims of the deportation order, which the court said was illegal.
The compensation formula deployed by the African Court of Justice met the international standards of estimating the inflicted damage based on actual income lost or foregone. Tanzania courts’ lack of clear methodology of evaluating damages stoke complaints of favouritism and reprisals.
– Invoke Procedural Irregularities:
Scrutinize the trial for due process violations (e.g., bias, lack of evidence). If the court relied on questionable testimony or anonymous sources (as criticized in RAID’s reports ), this could strengthen grounds for appeal.
🛡️ 2. Political and Legislative Immunity.
– Parliamentary Privilege:
As an MP, Mwita may invoke parliamentary immunity if the alleged defamatory statements were made during official duties. Tanzania’s Constitution protects speech in legislative proceedings, though its scope requires precise legal interpretation.
As currently understood, he was not during parliamentary proceedings; therefore, he is unlikely to get a reprieve through this line of legal consideration.
– Lobby for Legal Reform:
Mobilize parliamentary allies to amend oppressive laws, such as the **Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act (BRADEA)**, which shields high-ranking officials but exposes MPs to litigation. Reforms could align defamation penalties with international standards.
🤝 3. Settlement and Negotiation.
– Out-of-Court Settlement:
Negotiate a reduced penalty or payment plan. Given the plaintiff’s potential political motivations (e.g., silencing criticism of mining interests ), mediation might offer mutual concessions.
– Asset Protection:
Legally shield personal assets from seizure by demonstrating the fine’s impoverishing effect. Tanzanian courts may consider equitable remedies if enforcement violates human dignity.
🌐 4. Domestic and International Advocacy.
– Coalition Building:
Partner with Tanzanian human rights groups (e.g., Legal and Human Rights Centre) to frame the case as systemic repression. Public campaigns could pressure the government into intervention.
– International Bodies:
Petition the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights if the Appeals Court upholds the High Court ruling, highlighting Tanzania’s decline in civil liberties and politicized judiciary. RAID’s involvement in North Mara mine disputes shows transnational advocacy can amplify scrutiny.
⚠️ 5. Bankruptcy or Insolvency Proceedings.
– While not ideal, declaring bankruptcy could legally nullify the debt. However, this risks political credibility and mirrors tactics used against opponents (e.g., “financial life imprisonment“). It may shield them from pecuniary liability but close the door to retaining his parliamentary seat. Bankruptcy disqualifies from running for public office.
6. Points of law to advance at the Appeals Court.
- The respondent suffered nothing substantial to justify an arbitrary figure of the Tshs 6 Bill.
- The High Court’s assessment of damages was ambiguous, unprecedented, and arbitrary.
- The Appellant had a plausible cause to question the conduct of the respondent, who was also running for the office he occupies.
- The respondent once worked at PPRA, and CAG reports during his tenure raised similar issues even if his name wasn’t mentioned.
- Political statements during campaigns are too legit to be hobbled by libel suits lest public accountability be muzzled.
Key Challenges:
– Judicial Independence:
Tanzania’s courts face “politicization of human rights matters“, potentially limiting fair appeals.
– Reprisal Risks:
Whistleblowers and critics face “unknown assailants” and institutional retaliation , necessitating security measures during litigation.
Strategic Recommendation:
Pursue a “two-track approach”:
Expedite appeals while rallying civil society to expose the case as emblematic of Tanzania’s shrinking civic space. Precedents like the *BRADEA amendments* reveal systemic flaws that can be leveraged for reform. International pressure (e.g., UN Special Rapporteurs) may deter judicial weaponization.
For tailored legal strategies, Mwita should consult Tanzanian constitutional lawyers with experience in high-stakes defamation cases.
How did the trial Court justify a whooping Tshs 6 Bill compensation?
Based on the limited information available, the colossal “Tsh 6 billion (USD 2.6 million)” defamation award against Tarime Rural MP Waitara Mwita and others appears in the case “Eliakim Chacha Maswi vs Mwita Mwikwabe Waitara & 2 Others” (Civil Case 533412 of 2023). While the judgment text itself is not accessible in these search results, the extreme amount can be analyzed through contextual and legal lenses:
⚖️ Likely Legal Rationale for the Amount.
1. Plaintiff’s Status & Allegation Severity:
The plaintiff (Eliakim Chacha Maswi) was accused of “theft”—a criminal offence implying moral turpitude. If Maswi holds a high-profile position (e.g., business leader, official), Tanzanian courts may have calculated damages based on:
– Reputational harm impacting his livelihood or social standing.
– “Punitive damages” intended to deter powerful figures (like MPs) from making unverified allegations.
2. Defendant’s Position:
As an MP, Waitara Mwita’s statements carry significant public weight. Courts often impose higher penalties on officials for misuse of platforms.
3. Precedent Gaps:
Tanzania lacks standardized damage guidelines for defamation. Judges have wide discretion, risking arbitrary awards. Prior cases (e.g., “Shukuru Rashid Ngwelenje vs Riki Abdallah” 2022) cited in the Appropriation Act involve property disputes, not speech-related penalties, leaving this award without clear benchmark.
Cases of similar nature, weight and defamation complaints include former OAU secretary General Salim Ahmed Salim vs. The East African Newspapers in 2004 (Tshs 1 Bill.) or $ 1 mill. The matter was settled out of court after the first colossal award of Tshs 1 Bill.
Advocate Fatma Karume vs Cyprian Musiba (Tshs 1 Bill). To date, Musiba is yet to clear the award with Ms. Karume. There are about two or three more cases with Tshs 7.5 Bill. Last time, I was aware that Ms. Karume reminded Musiba to clear the bill through her X page.
Bernard Membe also won the Tshs 6 Bill against Cyprian Musiba, who was permanently barred from reporting any matter involving Mr. Membe, who is now deceased. It is unclear whether Musiba had settled this massive bill.
🚩 Why the Amount Raises Concerns?
– Economic Reality:
Tsh 6 billion equals “~400 years” of an MP’s salary (assuming Tsh 15 million/month). It is “458,000× Tanzania’s GDP per capita” (∼$1,200). This violates the legal principle that fines must be proportionate.
– Political Context:
The case appears in Tanzania’s Appropriation Act 2016 alongside criminal and land disputes, suggesting potential politicisation. High defamation awards often silence critics in shrinking civic spaces.
– Lack of Transparency:
Without the judgment text (unavailable here), the calculation methodology is opaque. Core questions remain:
> “Were actual losses proven?”
> “Did the court consider the defendant’s ability to pay?”
💎 Conclusion
The Tsh 6 billion award seems “disproportionate and legally tenuous” based on available data. Its inclusion in legislation () implies systemic endorsement of severe penalties for speech violations. Until the full judgment is public, this amount risks being perceived as:
> – A tool of political retaliation.
> – A violation of international free speech standards.
> – An arbitrary figure detached from Tanzanian socioeconomic realities.
Recommendation:
Legal activists should appeal this decision to Tanzania’s Court of Appeal, challenging its proportionality in accordance with the Constitution and international law.
Read more analysis by Rutashubanyuma Nestory
