By HeapNews
The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights ruled that Tanzania violated provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights by preventing legal challenges to presidential election results and decisions by electoral commissions, in a judgment delivered on Thursday in two related cases.
In its ruling in Application No. 046/2020: Ado Shaibu and 5 Others v. United Republic of Tanzania, the continental court held that Article 41(7) of Tanzania’s Constitution unlawfully bars individuals from challenging the election of a presidential candidate once the electoral commission declares a winner.
The court found that the constitutional provision denies citizens access to a court to contest presidential election outcomes, violating Articles 1 and 7 of the African Charter, which require states to implement laws guaranteeing charter rights and ensure individuals have the right to have their cases heard by competent courts.
“The provision effectively prevents any legal challenge to the election of a presidential candidate once declared elected,” the court said in its judgment, concluding that the rule undermines the right to judicial review.
The ruling followed a case brought by six Tanzanian citizens, including Ado Shaibu, secretary-general of the opposition Alliance for Change and Transparency (ACT) Wazalendo party, along with two electoral candidates and three registered voters.
During the hearing, the applicants were represented by a team of lawyers including Chidi Odinkalu, Ibrahima Kane and Don Deya, with legal support from the Pan African Lawyers Union (PALU). Lawyers Fulgence Massawe and Ombeni Kimaro appeared in person on behalf of PALU.
Shaibu said the case was inspired by the late Seif Sharif Hamad, a longtime opposition figure and presidential candidate who died in February 2021 after the application had been filed.
“This case belonged to Seif Shariff Hamad,” Shaibu said in a statement after the judgment. “We made a conscious decision to place him at the heart of this petition because he spent his entire life demanding that the will of the people be respected.”
Shaibu described the ruling as opening a new avenue for electoral accountability in Tanzania.
“We have opened a door that was locked for decades. By securing the right to challenge presidential election results, we have ensured that the law is finally louder than the announcement of a winner,” he said.
Electoral oversight ruling
In a separate judgment delivered on the same day, the African Court also ruled on Applications 040 and 043/2020, which were consolidated and challenged other provisions of Tanzania’s electoral laws.
In that decision, the court held that Article 74(12) of Tanzania’s Constitution and Article 119(13) of the Zanzibar Constitution violate principles of equality before the law and the right to a fair hearing.
The provisions prevent courts from reviewing decisions taken by the National Electoral Commission and the Zanzibar Electoral Commission.
The court said such restrictions undermine judicial oversight of electoral processes and limit citizens’ ability to seek remedies when electoral decisions are disputed.
Fulgence Massawe, one of the lawyers representing the applicants, said the rulings highlighted constitutional gaps in Tanzania’s electoral framework.
“The African Court has made it clear that Tanzania must close the constitutional gaps that prevent citizens from challenging key aspects of the electoral process, including presidential election results and decisions of the electoral commissions,” Massawe said.
“A democracy cannot function when such an important part of the electoral process is beyond judicial oversight,” he added.
The court directed the Tanzanian government to take legislative measures to amend the relevant constitutional and legal provisions to align them with the African Charter.
Concerns over admissibility
Despite welcoming parts of the decision, the applicants and their legal team expressed concern that the court declared many of their claims inadmissible.
The court ruled that most of the allegations should first have been pursued before domestic courts in Tanzania, citing the principle that applicants must exhaust available local remedies before bringing cases to a regional tribunal.
The applicants’ lawyers disputed that reasoning, arguing that exceptions to the exhaustion rule apply in cases involving serious human rights violations, climates of fear, or situations where a state is already aware of alleged abuses.
They said the applicants had submitted extensive documentation, including reports from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Lead counsel Chidi Odinkalu said the court missed an opportunity to address broader structural issues in Tanzania’s electoral system.
“The Court has acknowledged that Tanzania violated the Charter by denying meaningful judicial review of a presidential election challenge,” Odinkalu said.
“However, by declaring most claims inadmissible on procedural grounds, the Court missed an opportunity to fully address systemic weaknesses in Tanzania’s electoral framework.”
He also raised concerns about the length of time the court took to deliver its decision.
“Justice delayed and narrowly framed sends a troubling signal for electoral accountability on the continent,” Odinkalu said.
Case background
The case was filed on Nov. 20, 2020, shortly after Tanzania’s presidential election that year. The African Court served the application on the Tanzanian government on May 2, 2021, giving it 30 days to respond.
According to the applicants, Tanzania submitted its response about 90 days late and issued a general denial without providing supporting evidence.
The applicants subsequently filed a reply along with sworn affidavits from witnesses and a legal brief outlining the facts and legal arguments supporting their claims.
Their request to call witnesses was denied by the court.
In February 2025, the court also granted permission for the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Centre and the Institute for Human Rights and Democracy in Africa to submit a joint brief as amici curiae, or friends of the court, citing their experience in litigating electoral disputes.
The original application included seven applicants, but the court later removed Seif Sharif Hamad from the case after his death in February 2021.
The remaining applicants include Shaibu and five other Tanzanian citizens who said they were affected by the country’s electoral framework.