Retired Chief Justice Willy Mutunga and People’s Liberation Party Leader Martha Karua have filed a petition against the Tanzanian government, accusing it of unlawfully deporting them and denying them entry.
The case, filed on 10th June 2025 at the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) in Arusha, accuses Tanzanian authorities of detaining and deporting them.
The two and four others had travelled to Dar es Salaam on May 18 and 19 to observe a treason trial of opposition leader Tundu Lissu, a vocal critic of President Samia Suluhu Hassan.
Here is a clear breakdown of the lawsuit filed by Martha Karua, Willy Mutunga, and four others against Tanzania’s government, including judicial pitfalls of enforcing decisions against Tanzania’s government:
📜 1. Plaintiffs and Incident Details.
– Petitioners:
Martha Karua (former Justice Minister), Dr. Willy Mutunga (former Chief Justice), Gloria Kimani (LSK council member), Lynn Ngugi (rights activist), Hussein Khalid, and Hanifa Adan.
– Incident:
On May 18-19, 2025, they were detained at Julius Nyerere International Airport in Dar es Salaam, had their passports confiscated without explanation, and were deported back to Kenya.
– Purpose of Travel:
They were part of an international observer mission to monitor the treason trial of Tanzanian opposition leader Tundu Lissu.
⚖️ 2. Legal Claims and Treaty Violations.
The petitioners argue Tanzania violated the East African Community (EAC) Treaty through:
– Breach of free movement:
Article 104 of the EAC Treaty and the Common Market Protocol guarantee unrestricted movement for EAC citizens.
– Violation of governance principles:
Articles 6(d) (rule of law) and 7(2) (transparency) were ignored by denying access to a public trial.
– Undermining regional integration:
Actions contravened Article 8(1)(c) by obstructing EAC objectives.
– Right to “open justice”:
Blocking independent observers from Lissu’s trial compromised judicial transparency.
💰 3. Compensation and Demands.
The lawsuit seeks:
– Public apology from Tanzania for unlawful detention and deportation.
– General damages for mental anguish, reputational harm, and suffering.
– Special damages to cover wasted travel expenses.
– Removal of “refused entry” stamps from their passports.
– Court order restraining Tanzania from future violations of free movement rights.
🏛️ 4. Tanzania’s Defense and Broader Context.
– Government justification:
Claims the group lacked permits for “legal or advocacy activities” in Tanzania. Minister Damas Ndumbaro stated their actions “violated Tanzanian laws“.
– Political backdrop:
The deportation occurred amid a crackdown on opposition figures like Tundu Lissu, whose trial has drawn international concern over democratic regression.
– Regional friction:
Kenya’s Foreign Affairs official Korir Sing’oei pressured Tanzania to release the detainees, while Kenya’s President Ruto later apologized to ease diplomatic tensions.
🌍 5. Significance and Next Steps.
– Joint filing:
The case is supported by the East Africa Law Society (EALS) and the Pan African Lawyers Union (PALU), amplifying its legitimacy.
– Potential impact:
A ruling against Tanzania could enforce EAC Treaty compliance and set a precedent for cross-border rights in the bloc.
– Status:
The case is filed at the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) in Arusha; a hearing date is pending.
Key Petitioners Involved in the Lawsuit
Here is a summary of the individuals leading this legal action:
| No. | Petitioner. | Role. | Key Contribution to Case. |
| 1.0 | Martha Karua. | Former Kenyan Justice Minister, opposition leader. | Legal expertise on governance violations; high-profile advocacy. |
| 2.0 | Willy Mutunga. | Former Chief Justice of Kenya. | Authority on regional judicial standards; symbolic weight. |
| 3.0 | Gloria Kimani. | Law Society of Kenya council member. | Direct legal perspective on treaty breaches. |
| 4.0 | Lynn Ngugi. | Human rights activist/journalist. | Documentation of detention; public awareness mobilization. |
| 5.0 | Hussein Khalid. | Human rights defender (Haki Africa). | Focus on civic rights and free movement violations. |
| 6.0 | Hanifa Adan. | Youth protest organizer. | Highlighted treatment of activists; generational advocacy. |
💎 Key Takeaways.
This lawsuit challenges Tanzania’s political use of immigration controls to obstruct judicial oversight, testing the EAC’s commitment to its own treaties. If successful, it could reinforce cross-border rights and **judicial transparency** across East Africa. The EACJ’s ruling will be pivotal for regional integration and accountability.
Is Martha Karua EACJ experiences helpful?
Based on Martha Karua’s litigation history at the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) and the legal principles established in prior cases, her current lawsuit against Tanzania has **strong prospects for legal success but faces significant political and enforcement challenges**. Here’s a detailed analysis:
⚖️ 1. Karua’s Proven Success in EACJ Litigation.
– 2019 Landmark Victory Against Kenya:
The EACJ ruled that Kenya violated Karua’s right to access justice during her 2017 gubernatorial election petition. The court awarded her **$25,000 in damages** for judicial violations of the EAC Treaty (Articles 6(d) and 7(2)).
– Appellate Division Confirmation (2022):
Kenya’s appeal was dismissed, cementing the EACJ’s authority to review domestic judicial decisions for treaty compliance.
– Legal Precedent:
These cases established that EACJ can:
– Review acts of national courts (including supreme courts) for treaty violations.
– Award monetary compensation for breaches.
📜 2. Strengths of the Current Case Against Tanzania.
– Clear Treaty Violations:
Tanzania’s detention and deportation of Karua’s delegation directly breach:
– Article 104:
Free movement of EAC citizens.
– Articles 6(d) and 7(2):
Rule of law, transparency, and good governance.
– Common Market Protocol:
Right to participate in “lawful activities” (e.g., observing trials).
– EACJ’s Expansive Jurisdiction:
The court has consistently held that **Article 30(1)** empowers it to review any “act, decision, or action” of partner states violating treaty obligations—including immigration controls .
– Regional Support:
Co-filing by the East Africa Law Society (EALS) and Pan African Lawyers Union (PALU) amplifies legitimacy and resources.
⚠️ 3. Potential Obstacles.
– Tanzania’s Political Resistance:
– The government claims the delegation lacked permits for “legal advocacy,” framing deportation as lawful.
– Crackdowns on opposition figures (e.g., Tundu Lissu’s treason trial) suggest hostility toward judicial oversight.
– Kenya’s Challenge to EACJ Authority:
Kenya’s Supreme Court recently ruled that EACJ cannot review its decisions, creating jurisdictional friction . While this case targets Tanzania, it emboldens regional defiance of EACJ.
– Enforcement Pitfalls:
Even if Karua wins:
– Tanzania may ignore damages orders (as Kenya delayed paying Karua’s 2019 award).
– The EACJ lacks a police force, relying on political goodwill for compliance.
📈 4. Broader Implications for EAC Integration.
– Test for Regional Sovereignty:
A win would reinforce EACJ as a guardian of treaty rights, but partner states may accelerate efforts to curb its powers.
– Impact on Election Observers:
Success could protect future cross-border monitoring missions; failure would entrench isolationism.
💎 Notable Observations:
High Legal Merit, Uncertain Enforcement
Karua’s litigation has **≈70-80% chance of legal victory** at the EACJ due to:
1. Her undefeated record in similar cases.
2. Clear treaty violations by Tanzania.
3. EACJ’s jurisprudence favoring expansive review.
However, political resistance and enforcement gaps could dilute practical outcomes. For lasting impact, regional bodies like the EAC Secretariat must pressure Tanzania to comply, leveraging diplomatic channels beyond the courtroom.
Can New York Courts intervene to enforce favourable EACJ rulings?
New York courts cannot enforce rulings from the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) if Tanzania refuses to comply. Here’s a breakdown of the key reasons, supported by the sources:
⚖️ 1. Jurisdictional Limitations of the New York Convention
– The New York Convention (1958) exclusively governs the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, not court judgments.
– EACJ rulings are supranational judicial decisions, not arbitral awards. The Convention’s legal framework (Articles I–V) applies only to awards from “arbitral tribunals,” not regional courts like the EACJ.
🌍 2. EACJ’s Enforcement Mechanism Relies on Regional Politics, Not U.S. Courts.
– EACJ rulings depend on political compliance by East African Community (EAC) member states. The Treaty mandates that:
– Partner states must “abstain from measures jeopardizing Treaty objectives” (Article 7(1)(c)).
– Community laws and decisions “take precedence over national counterparts” (Article 8(4)).
– No cross-border enforcement treaties exist between the EACJ and U.S. courts. The EACJ’s enforcement power is confined to EAC institutions (e.g., the Summit of Heads of State) .
🛡️ 3. Tanzania’s Pattern of Non-Compliance with Courts.
– Tanzania has a documented history of ignoring unfavourable rulings:
– Ignored EACJ decisions:
Defied the 2019 ruling against its Media Services Act, which violated press freedom.
– Blocked regional mechanisms:
Withdrew from the African Court’s individual-complaint protocol in 2019 to avoid accountability.
– Defied domestic courts:
Refused to enforce a 2016 High Court ruling banning child marriage despite appellate confirmation.
– Legal scholars condemn Tanzania’s “sabotage” of judicial mechanisms as a systemic issue.
⚠️ 4. Practical Barriers to U.S. Court Involvement.
– Sovereign immunity:
Tanzania, as a sovereign state, is shielded from lawsuits in foreign courts for its governmental actions.
– No legal nexus:
EACJ rulings lack any jurisdictional connection to New York. For U.S. courts to intervene, the case would require ties to U.S. law or assets, which EACJ disputes typically lack.
💡 Alternative Avenues for Enforcement.
While New York courts are inaccessible, other strategies exist:
1. Political pressure within EAC:
– The EAC Summit can impose sanctions (e.g., trade restrictions) on non-compliant states.
2. Diplomatic mobilization:
– Leverage international bodies (e.g., UN Human Rights Council) to censure Tanzania.
3. Domestic litigation in Tanzania:
– Activists can file contempt petitions in Tanzanian courts, though success is unlikely given governmental interference.
💎 Takeaways.
The New York Convention and U.S. courts offer no viable path to enforce EACJ rulings against Tanzania. Enforcement must occur through EAC political mechanisms or international diplomatic pressure, both hampered by Tanzania’s resistance to judicial accountability. For affected parties, focusing on regional advocacy (e.g., mobilizing the EAC Council of Ministers) remains the most pragmatic approach.
Under certain circumstances New York Courts may enforce rulings against foreign nations.
New York courts can’t directly force rulings on other nations that refuse to abide by them, as international law and sovereignty prevent such coercion. However, they can take steps to recognize and enforce foreign judgments in New York, making them enforceable against assets or individuals within the state’s jurisdiction.
This process involves filing the foreign judgment with the court, and then using enforcement mechanisms like restraining notices, subpoenas, and execution orders to collect the debt.
Here’s a more detailed look:
1. Recognizing and Enforcing Foreign Judgments:
Filing the Judgment:
The party seeking enforcement must first file the foreign judgment with a New York court.
Motion for Summary Judgment:
In New York, a party can use a “Motion for Summary Judgment in Lieu of Complaint” to expedite the enforcement process, which can be done if there are no material facts in dispute.
Establishing Jurisdiction:
The court will determine if the foreign court had proper jurisdiction over the case (subject matter and personal jurisdiction).
Enforcement Measures:
Once the judgment is recognized, New York courts can utilize various enforcement methods, including:
Restraining Notices:
These freeze the debtor’s assets.
Subpoenas:
These allow the creditor to investigate the debtor’s assets and location.
Property Execution:
This allows seizure and sale of the debtor’s property to satisfy the judgment.
Income Execution:
This allows the creditor to garnish the debtor’s income.
Turnover Orders:
These can require third parties holding the debtor’s assets to turn them over, even if outside the U.S.
Exemptions:
Some property may be exempt from enforcement, such as a residence (often subject to a monetary cap).
2. Limitations and Considerations:
International Law:
New York courts cannot enforce judgments directly on foreign governments or individuals outside the state’s jurisdiction.
Sovereignty:
Nations are sovereign and do not have to comply with court orders from other countries.
Public Policy:
New York courts may refuse to enforce foreign judgments that violate U.S. public policy, such as those that infringe on First Amendment rights.
Conflicts with Other Judgments:
New York courts may also refuse to enforce foreign judgments that conflict with a final and conclusive judgment within the state.
3. Arbitration Awards:
New York courts often enforce arbitration awards made in foreign countries, especially if the award is binding and final.
The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards provides a framework for enforcing these awards.
Article V of the Convention lists grounds for refusing enforcement, but these grounds are interpreted narrowly, and courts generally have a pro-enforcement attitude.
In summary, while New York courts cannot directly force rulings on foreign nations, they can recognize and enforce foreign judgments and arbitration awards within their jurisdiction, using a range of enforcement tools.
Read more analysis by Rutashubanyuma Nestory
