DAR ES SALAAM: REPUTATION is a strange, invisible kind of wealth. You cannot hold it in your hand, lock it in a bank vault or insure it against theft, yet it may be the most valuable thing you own.
It walks into rooms before you do, shaping whether you are welcomed or doubted.
In Tanzania, where communities are tightly knit and news travels fast, a good name opens doors in business, marriage and society, while a damaged one shuts them.
Because words can destroy this intangible wealth, the law steps in to draw a boundary.
This boundary is the law of defamation, an area that blends common law tradition with statutory rules to balance free expression and human dignity.
Understanding this balance is no longer a lawyer’s luxury. In a digital age where every smartphone owner is a publisher, knowing the law has become an everyday survival skill.
How the law defines defamation In Tanzania, the primary guardian of reputation is The Media Service Act, Chapter 229, R.E 2023. Though technical, its core idea is simple.
Section 35 defines “defamatory matter” as any statement likely to injure the reputation of a person by exposing them to hatred, contempt or ridicule or by damaging their standing in their trade, profession or office.
The focus is on the effect of the words, not only the speaker’s intention. This mirrors long-standing Tanzanian jurisprudence.
In Chaudhry Mohamed v. Claver Maganga (High Court, 1988), the court held that the key question is whether the words would lower the plaintiff in the eyes of right-thinking members of society.
If a reasonable observer would think less of your neighbour after hearing your words, the law considers that defamation.
Whether you whispered the story at a bus stand or typed it into a WhatsApp group, the standard remains the same. Libel, slander and the trap of publication The law draws two branches from the same tree, libel and slander.
Libel covers defamation in a permanent or recorded form like writing, print, broadcasts, or anything online. Section 36 of the Act places digital posts squarely within this category.
Slander covers defamation in spoken form: The passing remark, the rumour carried by voice, the accusation aired at a meeting or on a street corner.
Unlike libel, slander rarely leaves a physical footprint. To prove it, courts rely on witnesses who can recall the words clearly and the context in which they were spoken.
Tanzanian courts recognise certain slanderous statements as actionable per se meaning no proof of special damage is required, such as allegations of criminal conduct, contagious disease, unchastity or professional misconduct.
These categories are treated as inherently damaging because their impact on reputation is immediate. Publication itself is a low threshold.
It happens the moment a third party hears or sees the statement. It does not matter whether the audience is one boda-boda rider or a thousand TikTok viewers.
ALSO READ: NIMCA calls on Africa to repeal laws criminalizing defamation, sedition
And the law does not require that you name a person outright. If listeners or readers can reasonably identify who you meant from a nickname, description, photograph or context then the requirement of identification is satisfied.
The principle that “one who repeats a libel adopts it” applies equally to slander. Forwarding a voice note or repeating a rumour makes you legally responsible for its harm, regardless of where it started.
What the courts demand as proof When a dispute reaches court, judges apply a strict framework. In The Guardian Ltd v.
Christopher Paul Madole (High Court, 2023), the court reaffirmed the essential elements a plaintiff must prove.
First, the statement must be defamatory. Second, it must refer to the plaintiff. Third, it must have been published to a third party. Fourth, it must be false.
Fifth, it must not be protected by privilege. These requirements show how precise the law is. Being offended is not enough.
Defamation protects against falsehood that damages reputation, not truth that causes discomfort.
A plaintiff who cannot prove falsity will fail, no matter how hurtful the words were.
The court wants clarity like What exactly was said? Who heard it? Was it false? And did it cause reputational harm? Only when these answers align does liability arise.
The shield of truth, honest opinion and privilege The law does not exist to silence criticism.
It simply insists that criticism must be fair and grounded in fact. Truth remains the strongest defense.
If the statement is true and published for the public benefit, the speaker is protected.
Honest opinion formerly “fair comment” also shields commentary on matters of public interest, provided it is clearly an opinion, based on true facts and expressed without spite.
Privileged communication offers another layer of protection, under section 38, covering statements made by the President, in Parliament, in court or in certain official reports.
What the law refuses to protect are false allegations dressed as opinion or reckless statements disguised as public concern.
The wider legal landscape Although the Media Services Act is the central statute, it is not the only authority that touches defamation.
The Penal Code contains offences relating to criminal defamation, particularly where false statements threaten public order or are made maliciously.
The Cybercrimes Act addresses defamatory content shared through digital systems, while the Law of Torts Act preserves general principles inherited from common law.
Together, these sources show that Tanzania treats reputation as a form of dignity protected across multiple legal fronts.
Whether the falsehood is spoken in a market or posted online, the law views both as threats to social trust.
The heavy price of a loose tongue When defamation is proven, the consequences can be significant.
Section 41 and common law principles allow courts to order remedies that extend beyond apologies. In Iddi Mohamed Simba v.
The Editor, Mtanzania Newspaper & Another (High Court, 2015), the court acknowledged the lasting harm caused when the media is used to attack character.
Damages may be awarded to compensate for injury to feelings, reputation and future prospects.
Courts may also issue injunctions preventing further publication. In the digital age, where posts survive through screenshots long after deletion, a single reckless moment can create a long legal shadow.
The wisdom of Jua Leo, Jilinde Kesho fits the modern communication landscape perfectly.
In a world where rumours move faster than facts, words behave like fire.
Controlled, they provide light, uncontrolled, they burn indiscriminately.
The law on defamation in Tanzania offers a simple reminder, you are accountable for what you speak and what you type.
Before forwarding a rumour, repeating a story or crafting a post, ask whether it is true, necessary and defensible.
Once spoken or shared, a harmful statement cannot be fully retrieved. A whisper can turn into a wound and a wound can turn into a lawsuit. Guard your reputation and just as carefully, guard your words.
This guidance is meant as general information about defamation law, for specific cases or further advice, consulting qualified lawyers, law societies or relevant authorities is always recommended.