DAR ES SALAAM: IN the previous article, I argued that Tanzania’s post election period was marked by moments when the exercise of some rights intersected, and at times collided with the protection of others.
Such tensions are rarely visible in times of political calm, when human rights appear harmonious and easy to defend. The aftermath of the October 29 election exposed a far more complex reality.
The right to organise demonstrations converged with the right to vote and the State’s constitutional duty to protect civilians and their property.
At the same time, these rights intersected with freedom of movement, access to public services, the right to life, access to information, economic rights and the need to maintain public order.
These were not abstract debates. They played out on the streets, in homes and in workplaces, forcing difficult choices in real time.
This article moves beyond surface narratives. It examines how these rights came into tension, why some voices dominated the public discourse while others fell silent and what this collision means for a comprehensive understanding of human rights in post-election Tanzania.
Importantly, some of these rights surfaced and began to collide even before election day. First things first.
The right to organise demonstrations is guaranteed under Article 20(1) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania.
The Article provides the legal basis for freedom of assembly and association, and by extension the right to organise and participate in demonstrations.
However, this right is limited to peaceful assembly. In practice, this constitutional requirement is often overlooked in media reporting and in statements by some respected human rights actors. Because assemblies must be peaceful, the law allows regulation.
Section 39(1) of the Public Order Act, Cap 355 (Revised Edition 2002), requires organisers of public meetings, processions, or demonstrations to give prior notice to the Police. In the case of October 29, no such notification was served.
For this reason, the Police declared the planned demonstrations unlawful. In addition, most coordination took place online, with no clear organisers or leadership on the ground.
The call for demonstrations came at a critical moment, on the very day registered voters were preparing to exercise their right to vote. The morning of October 29 began calmly, with voters turning up at polling stations across the country.
Before midday, however, unrest broke out in some areas. Information spread rapidly that demonstrations had begun to disrupt the election process.
ALSO READ: Tanzania names Independent Commission of Inquiry for Oct 29 Elections
It soon became clear that what was unfolding was not a peaceful demonstration, but widespread violence.
This raises a key question: Did the Police and other security organs act wrongly by intervening? Before answering that, another question must be addressed: Was this truly a demonstration? The scale of destruction suggests otherwise.
The Prime Minister, Hon Mwigulu Nchemba, presented an initial assessment that showed the extent of the damage.
According to his report, 2,268 private motorcycles were burned, 1,642 private vehicles destroyed and 976 government vehicles set on fire.
In addition, 756 government offices were demolished, 672 fuel stations burned, 273 private houses destroyed, 159 police stations damaged, 27 BRT stations vandalised and six buses burned. Such levels of destruction fit the definition of violence, not peaceful protest.
This raises a difficult question: Why did some activists, respected religious organisations and human rights institutions, segments of the international media, and parts of the international community appear to ignore the reality on the ground by advancing a narrative of political demonstrations in Tanzania?
Freedom of expression and the right to organise peaceful demonstrations are fundamental and must be protected. However, these rights are not exercised in a vacuum.
They must be exercised in accordance with the law. Framing unlawful and violent acts as legitimate demonstrations risks distorting the truth and, intentionally or otherwise, contributes to instability.
Such narratives can undermine many other rights that Tanzanians particularly the overwhelming majority seek to enjoy in a peaceful and secure environment.
Faced with this reality, the Police and security organs had little choice but to intervene.
Section 5 of the Police Force and Auxiliary Services Act, Cap 322 (Revised Edition 2002), places a duty on the Police to maintain law and order and to protect life and property.
The Prime Minister’s report did not disclose the number of deaths or injuries, a point criticised by some observers.
It must be stated clearly that the loss of life, even one life, is unacceptable and violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which protects the right to life.
Yet a difficult question remains: What was the alternative? Allow the destruction to continue unchecked? What was the end-game by the socalled protesters?
The widespread damage to public and private property itself violated Article 24(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to own property.
This article does not exhaust all the rights that collided during this period. However, the right to access information deserves attention. The violence was highly coordinated.
Like many organised illegal acts, it relied on speed and anonymity. In response, Tanzania experienced a temporary internet shutdown.
The decision was based on Section 89(1)(c) of the Electronic and Postal Communications Act (EPOCA), Cap 306 (Revised Edition 2022), enforced by the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority (TCRA), on grounds of national security and public safety.
The shutdown was temporary. According to TCRA, essential digital services such as banking, navigation and health systems remained operational.
In this case, the right to access information came into tension with the need to prevent further violence. Freedom of movement highly valued by Tanzanians was also affected.
In places like Dar es Salaam, movement was restricted for several days as security organs sought to protect the wider population, the majority of whom rejected the violence.
This was reflected in public reactions following the failed demonstrations of December 9, when many Tanzanians openly reaffirmed their commitment to peace a long-standing national identity.
From a human rights perspective, it remains troubling that many local and international human rights actors focused on some violations while overlooking others.
No right is superior to another. All human rights are equal, interdependent and deserving of protection. While it is legitimate to highlight specific violations, moments of collision demand honesty and balance.
Some rights may temporarily yield to others, but none should be dismissed or forgotten. All must ultimately be safeguarded for