Admissibility of electronic evidence in primary courts apt, but
By Valerian Msola
Tanzania’s legal system has taken yet another historic leap forward as the Chief Justice, through Government Notice (GN) No. 143 of June 5, 2026 introduces Regulations which explicitly empowers primary courts to admit electronic evidence.
The move brings to an end the long-standing controversy among legal practitioners as to whether primary courts were allowed to admit electronic evidence.
To grasp the magnitude of this change, one must look at Tanzania’s judicial structure. Established under the Magistrates’ Courts Act (Cap. 11), primary courts sit at the foundational base of the judiciary. Operating within district wards, they are the most accessible courts for ordinary citizens, mostly handling civil cases and selected criminal matters.
While higher courts within the structure had been comfortably admitting electronic evidence, primary courts remained legally blocked. The 1964 rules of evidence were not only outdated but recently sparked a legal controversy within the legal fraternity as to whether electronic evidence was admissible at the primary courts.
Even higher courts were drawn into the controversy. While the High Court (Shinyanga Registry) reasoned in Hussein Haji Miraji vs Isack Elias Kiganga that the Electronic Transactions Act applied independently and since no provision excludes primary courts, then electronic evidence could be admitted at the primary courts under the broad umbrella of “documentary evidence”.
The reasoning was, however, short-lived as the Court of Appeal in the case of Hussein Amin Teja vs Frida Fredrick Mchauru categorically ruled that Electronic Transactions Act was not applicable in primary courts.
The apex court enunciated broadly “rules of evidence in primary courts do not permit admission of electronic evidence”.
Effectively, flickering hopes of seeing admission of electronic evidence in Primary courts suffered an untimely demise.
A new dawn
Thanks to the newly published Magistrates’ Courts (Rules of Evidence in Primary Courts) (Amendment) Regulations, electronic evidence in primary courts is now a reality placed through Regulation 8A into the 1964 framework. Regulation 8A(1) states: “In any proceedings before a primary court, electronic evidence shall be admissible.”
But how will the primary courts handle, verify and weigh electronic evidence, which could sometimes be complex in nature? The answer lies in Regulation 8A(2), which dictates that the provisions of the Electronic Transactions Act (Cap. 442) shall now apply to the admissibility of electronic evidence at primary courts.
This integration ensures that, subject to jurisdiction, a vitenge retailer at Twabagondozi Ward in Kibondo District, for instance, may now rely on WhatsApp text exchanges at the local primary court to claim unpaid dues from his buyers.
Electronic evidence: Admission vs weight
Tying the lowest courts to the Electronic Transactions Act may sound technical, but in its decision in Republic vs Abdallah Abubakar Mwita and Others the High Court (Corruption and Economic Crimes Division-Dar es Salaam) emphasised that courts should not be overly rigid during the initial admission stage.
The court stated that threshold requires only basic foundational testimony from a witness explaining how the digital item was captured or retrieved.
Primary court magistrates are thus guided to separate the simple act of receiving evidence from the deeper act of evaluating its truth.
Once a basic, trustworthy foundation is laid, the electronic evidence may be admitted. Only later, during the final evaluation of the entire evidence, the magistrate will thoroughly weigh on authenticity and integrity of the electronic evidence and then issue a judgment.
Looming challenges ahead
While the legal fraternity celebrates this milestone, operationalising the new regulations across Tanzania’s vast geographic landscape may have possible encounters, including:
Lack of readily-available infrastructure: Most primary courtrooms may be held back by the lack of viewing screens or desktops for some of the digital evidence.
As a result, magistrates may be forced to use personal laptops to play back video or audio files brought to them via unverified flash drives or other inter-devices data transfers.
In a way, this may expose magistrates’ workstations to potential cyber risks.
Storage deficits: Reviewing electronic data requires steady and secure servers. Primary courts lack secure digital storage for large files, such as CCTV footage or lengthy WhatsApp threads, they could end up being deleted, damaged and irrecoverable.
Technical expertise: Verifying whether a screenshot has been digitally manipulated requires technical training, which magistrates in lower courts lack. Moreover, when evidence integrity is disputed, the geographic location and scarcity of independent expert witnesses may make assisting remote primary courts difficult.
A promising future
The amendment brought by GN No. 143 of 2026 is a massive victory for access to timely and fair justice.
It ensures that an ordinary Tanzanian does not lose a case simply because their truth is locked inside a smartphone.
However, for this amendment to achieve full potential, the Judiciary must urgently shift its focus towards upgrading courtrooms infrastructure and technical capacity to further simplify tendering of electronic evidence in primary courts.
Valerian A. Msola is a Resident Magistrate currently working as a Judge’s Legal Assistant at the High Court of Tanzania, Kigoma Registry
