Guardians of Rigging: How Tanzania’s Police and Electoral System Sabotage Vote Protection.

Print or Email This Article

Why do Tanzania’s police talk about elections as if they are INEC?

Tanzania’s police speak about elections as if they share INEC’s mandate due to “three interconnected factors”: the constitutional framework assigning them security roles during elections, historical politicization of the police force, and institutional ambiguities that blur lines between security and electoral administration. Here’s a breakdown:

Ballots Behind Bars: How Tanzania’s Police Criminalize Election Oversight!

⚖️ 1. Legal Mandate to Secure Elections, Not Administer Them.

   – The “National Elections Act” designates the National Electoral Commission (NEC/INEC) as the “sole body” responsible for supervising elections, including voter registration, candidate nomination, and vote counting. 

   – However, the “Police Force and Auxiliary Services Act” (2002) obligates police to maintain public order, including during elections. This includes quelling riots, protecting polling stations, and arresting electoral offenders. When Police Commander Muliro states, “I am a law enforcer” while dismissing “No Reforms, No Election,” he invokes this security mandate—not an electoral one. 

🛡️ 2. Historical Politicization of the Police.

   – Tanzania’s police have historically functioned as a “regime-protection force”. Under one-party rule (pre-1992), their primary role was to “keep the ruling party in power,” leading to a culture of impunity and alignment with government interests.

   – Even after democratization, police remain under “direct presidential control”. Senior officers (like Muliro) are appointed by the president, who is also chair of the ruling party (CCM). This fuels perceptions that police interventions in electoral discourse serve political agendas.

For example: 

     – Police frequently disrupt opposition rallies under “public order” pretexts.

     – Muliro’s dismissal of opposition slogans as “political statements” aligns with the government’s stance against electoral boycotts. 

⚠️ 3. Blurred Institutional Boundaries.

   – Returning Officers (who manage elections at the constituency level) are appointed from among “district executives”— and now, civil servants who report to the president. This creates structural overlap between electoral administration and the executive branch, enabling police to overstep by conflating security with electoral authority.

   – The NEC’s “lack of operational independence” exacerbates this. Its commissioners are presidential appointees, and funding relies on the executive. Consequently, police often act as de facto enforcers of NEC directives, further muddying their role. 

💎 Key Example: Muliro’s Statement.

When Muliro asserts that “No Reforms, No Election” has no “legal basis”, he:

– “Oversteps” by interpreting electoral validity (a role reserved for NEC/courts). 

– “Signals alignment” with the government’s rejection of opposition demands.

– Exploits “ambiguity in the law”, which silences how police should engage in electoral discourse. 

📌 Conclusion: Signed, Sealed, Suppressed: The Systemic Sabotage of Vote Verification in Tanzania.

Tanzania’s police frame elections as part of their domain because they are “constitutionally tasked with election security”—but this intersects with a “legacy of politicization” and “weak institutional demarcation” between electoral management and state security. Reforms separating police from executive control and clarifying NEC’s autonomy are critical to resolving this conflict.

Agents of Disenfranchisement: Police, Polling Agents, and Tanzania’s Stolen Elections.

On the issue of protecting the vote, Muliro was responding to Zitto Kabwe remarks that if police were caught ballot stuffing they would deal with them.

Zitto Kabwe was apprehended by the police and required to clarify his statements.

Political parties can protect their votes through polling agents whom election managers often refuse to issue them with letters of ratification, and sometimes the police arraign them to stop the agents from reaching the polling stations. These election interference by the police facilitate massive rigging. 

Besides, within the election law, polling agents are required to sign election forms that have tallied all the results of that polling station and retain a form that is official, authentic and consigned by all election officers that is verifiable. That is part of electoral integrity embedded in the election law but the police and election managers regularly interrupt opposition watchdogs from accessing polling agents.

The issue of vote protection in Tanzania involves complex interactions between opposition parties, police, and electoral institutions, with recent events highlighting systematic challenges to electoral integrity. Here’s a structured analysis based on available information:

⚖️ 1. Police Response to Zitto Kabwe’s Ballot-Stuffing Warning.

   – Opposition leader Zitto Kabwe (ACT-Wazalendo) publicly warned that police officers involved in ballot stuffing would be “fair game,” emphasizing that ranks would not shield them from accountability.

   – This led to his “arrest on July 14, 2025”, under Section 89(2) of Tanzania’s Criminal Offences Act (threats). Police detained him for over 30 minutes without initial explanation, reflecting a pattern of using legal mechanisms to silence dissent. 

🛑 2. Systematic Obstruction of Polling Agents.

   – Legal Mandate vs. Reality:

While election laws entitle parties to deploy polling agents to observe voting and verify results, authorities frequently block their accreditation: 

     – Withheld Credentials:

Election managers (often ruling party-aligned) refuse to issue ratification letters, preventing agents from accessing polling stations.

     – Arrests and Intimidation:

Police arbitrarily arrest agents en route to stations, citing “unlawful assembly” or violating the Public Order Act. In the 2020 elections, over 300 opposition agents were detained nationally.

   – Impact:

 Without agents, opposition parties cannot monitor ballot distribution, challenge irregularities, or verify counts, enabling fraud like ballot stuffing. 

📜 3. Critical Role of Election Forms (e.g., Form 11C).

   – Polling agents are legally required to “sign Form 11C” (the official results sheet) after tallying. This form serves as the primary evidence for result verification.

   – Manipulation Tactics: 

     – Exclusion:

Agents are barred from stations during tallying, preventing their signatures. 

     – Coercion:

In 2020, agents in Zanzibar were forced to sign pre-filled fraudulent forms under police duress. 

     – Retention Denied:

Agents are often denied copies of signed forms, eliminating proof for legal challenges. 

🔍 4. Police as Facilitators of Electoral Fraud.

   – Partisan Enforcement:

Police systematically side with the ruling CCM by: 

     – Disrupting opposition rallies while permitting CCM events.

. 

     – Escalating pre-election arrests (e.g., Zitto Kabwe’s 2025 detention mirrors his 2020 sedition conviction for exposing police killings).

   – Ballot Stuffing Complicity:

Kabwe cited a 2024 incident where police officers were caught loading fake ballots—a practice Human Rights Watch linked to 2020 election violence. 

⚙️ 5. Institutional Degradation and Democratic Erosion.

   – Legal Weaponization:

Laws like the Public Order Act (1983) grant police discretion to criminalize opposition activities. 

   – Police Politicization:

The force reports directly to the president, enabling its use as a “regime-protection tool” rather than a neutral body. 

   – International Condemnation:

 The U.S. and UN documented police killings (e.g., 4 deaths in Zanzibar, 2020) and internet shutdowns during elections. 

💎 Conclusion: A Cycle of Impunity.

Tanzania’s electoral integrity is undermined by “coordinated institutional interference”: police suppress dissent, electoral bodies enable agent exclusion, and legal frameworks shield perpetrators. Reforms must address:

– Accountability:

 Independent oversight of police and electoral commissions. 

– Legal Reform:

Repeal repressive laws (e.g., Public Order Act). 

– Agent Protections:

Guaranteed accreditation, security, and form access. 

Without these steps, electoral outcomes will remain orchestrated rather than democratic, as opposition efforts to “protect votes” face state-sanctioned sabotage .

Quote:

“Signed, Sealed, Suppressed: The Systemic Sabotage of Vote Verification in Tanzania.”

Based on the comprehensive issues discussed—”police overreach, obstruction of polling agents, weaponization of laws, and systemic election rigging”—the most impactful title capturing all dimensions would be: 

Key Issues Covered: 

This title and its alternatives crystallize the nexus of “state power, electoral sabotage, and the systematic dismantling of democratic safeguards” in Tanzania.

Read more analysis by Rutashubanyuma Nestory