Court of Appeal quashes restrictions on public interest litigation

Dar es Salaam. The Court of Appeal of Tanzania has issued a landmark judgment with wide-reaching implications for human rights and public interest litigation in the country.

In a historic decision delivered on Friday, June 13, 2025, the Court struck down sections of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act that had previously barred individuals from filing public interest cases unless they could prove personal harm.

The appeal, Civil Appeal No. 134 of 2022, was lodged by prominent human rights advocate Onesmo Olengurumwa against the Attorney General.

The matter was heard by Justices Patricia Fikirini Levira, Yose Mlyambina Rumanyika, and Rehema Ngwembe.

The Court declared Sections 4(2), 4(3), 4(4), and 4(5) of the Act unconstitutional, ordering Parliament to repeal them within 12 months, after which they will automatically be rendered void.

These provisions had been introduced through the Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Act, 2020.

They required petitioners to prove they had suffered personal injury before initiating constitutional petitions, even in matters of broad public concern.

The amendments also barred legal action against top state officials, mandating instead that all suits be filed solely through the Attorney General.

Legal analysts said the provisions posed a significant barrier to justice and undermined citizens' ability to defend constitutional rights, especially where violations affected large sections of the population.

The Court of Appeal found that the requirement to prove personal harm before filing a public interest case conflicted with Article 26(2) of the Constitution, which grants every citizen the right and duty to protect the Constitution.

The justices ruled that the restriction stripped the public of their role as constitutional watchdogs.

“It is common knowledge that, in public interest litigations, a petitioner does not have to demonstrate the manner or extent of being affected,” the Court stated in its written decision.

The Court also invalidated Section 4(4), which had barred direct legal action against six senior government leaders, including the President, Vice President, and Chief Justice, by requiring all suits be directed through the Attorney General.

The justices held that the provision violated the principles of equality before the law and judicial accountability.

“The provision creates a situation where court orders may not be enforceable due to the absence of necessary parties,” the ruling reads.

Regarding Section 4(5), which demanded the exhaustion of all legal remedies before filing a constitutional petition, the Court found the requirement redundant.

It observed that no other legal route exists for enforcing Article 26 of the Constitution apart from petitioning the High Court.

The Court concluded by directing Parliament to repeal the contested amendments within 12 months, after which they would cease to have legal effect.

Advocate Olengurumwa was represented by a team of renowned legal minds, including Professor Emeritus Issa Shivji, Senior Counsel Mpale Mpoki, Dr Rugemeleza Nshala, and Advocate John Seka.

Speaking on behalf of the Tanzania Human Rights Defenders Coalition (THRDC), which supported the appeal, Mr Olengurumwa hailed the ruling as a significant victory for the rule of law.

“This is not just a legal win; it is a triumph for constitutionalism and fundamental rights,” the Coalition said in a statement released on June 14.