Tanzania
CRIN would like to express our profound gratitude to Deus Valentine, Chief Executive Officer of the Centre for Strategic Litigation for their comments on a draft of this report. CRIN also sent a draft version to the State for feedback and any comments received were taken into account in finalising the report. Any errors or inaccuracies remaining in the report are CRIN’s.
This report is provided for educational and informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. CRIN does not accept liability for any loss, damage, cost or expense incurred or arising by reason of any person using or relying on information in this report. CRIN encourages personal and educational use of this publication and grants permission for its reproduction in this capacity where proper credit is given in good faith.
All CRIN content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial No Derivatives 4.0 licence. No material produced by CRIN may be modified unless consent is given in writing. No material produced by CRIN may be re-used for commercial gain unless consent is given in writing.
I. National legal protections
A. Are environmental rights protected within the national constitution?
The Tanzanian Constitution (“Constitution”)1 does not expressly provide for the protection of environmental rights. However, Articles 9 and 27 of the Constitution arguably provide a basis for protecting environmental rights. Article 9 requires that the government must conduct public affairs such that national resources are preserved for the common good, while Article 27 provides that every person has a duty to protect the natural resources of Tanzania.2 Article 27 further compels all persons to safeguard property owned collectively by the people of Tanzania, and to combat all forms of waste.3 This provision can be interpreted as requiring both the Tanzanian government and people to ensure that they preserve and protect the country’s environment.
Article 13 of the Constitution provides that all persons shall have equal protection of the law without discrimination.4 While neither this provision nor any other provision in the Constitution specifically mentions age as a protected characteristic, this language appears to encompass children within the scope of protection of the Constitution and all other Tanzanian laws.
Another avenue by which Tanzania has committed to provide environmental rights is by way of ratified international treaties. International treaties to which Tanzania is a party are not self-executing (that is, they are not enforceable in Tanzanian courts immediately upon their conclusion). They become effective in courts after ratification by an act of Parliament.5 Tanzania is a party to major environmental treaties including:6
- Convention on Biological Diversity (ratified March 1996);
- Convention for the Protection, Management and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the Eastern African Region and Related Protocols (ratified March 1996);
- UN Convention to Combat Desertification (ratified April 1997);
- Vienna Convention on the Protection of Ozone Layer and Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (acceded April 1993);
- Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (acceded on April 1993); and
- Bamako Convention on Ban of the Import into Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes within Africa (ratified April 1993).
Internationally Tanzania is also a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Regionally, Tanzania is a party to the African Charter of the Rights and Welfare of the Child, the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights and the Bamako Convention banning the import into Africa and mandating control of hazardous waste.7
B. Have constitutional rights protections been applied by national courts with regards to environmental issues?
While there have been court cases asserting environmental rights granted by legislation (discussed further below), no environmental-related cases have been brought pursuant to the Constitution. The main reason for this is likely that there has been little reason to do so. A plaintiff seeking to assert their right to a safe and healthy environment has much better claim under one of the laws that address this issue directly (addressed further in Section I.D below), than under an implied right in the Constitution.
C. Has the concept of intergenerational equity been applied within national courts? If yes, in what circumstances?
While the concept of intergenerational equity does exist at least rhetorically in government publications, the concept has not made an explicit appearance in the higher courts. The focus of litigation in Tanzania seems to be on more immediate concerns than conduct that might affect future generations. However, since some judicial decisions remain unreported,8 it is possible that this principle has already been contemplated by lower-level courts. For example, as discussed below, the Environmental Management Act (EMA) includes the principle of intergenerational equity as a guiding factor in tribunal proceedings surrounding environmental rights violations.9 The concept may therefore gain a foothold in higher courts in the future.
D. What legislation is in place to regulate environmental protection? Are there any proposals for legal reforms currently under review in the national legislature?
The preeminent piece of environmental legislation is the Environmental Management Act of 2004 (“EMA”).10 The EMA provides “every person living in Tanzania” – which includes children – with the right to a clean, safe and healthy environment.11 The EMA also provides an explicit cause of action for the violation of this right which can be brought through local authorities and tribunals.12 Such actions are guided by a set of principles enumerated in the EMA, including: access to justice, ecosystem integrity, the “polluter pays” principle, intergenerational equity, and others.13
The EMA also provides for the creation and use of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs).14 Under the EMA, where a law or regulation dictates that a project requires an EIA, such an assessment must be undertaken at the actor’s expense before the project is undertaken.15 Failure to conduct a proper EIA as required by the applicable law is considered an offence under the Act.16 There are several laws which create obligatory EIAs. These laws could be considered environmental protection laws in their own right, but are better conceptualised as resource conservation laws. These include the Land Use Planning Act, the Mining Act, the Forest Act, the Fisheries Act, and other laws of a similar nature.17 Each of these laws require the project proponent to conduct an EIA.
The EMA also creates the National Environmental Management Council (“NEMC”), an advisory body to the government on all matters relating to the environment. NEMC collects and disseminates environmental information, formulates and recommends policies, formulates proposals for legislation, evaluates and improves existing policies, and facilitates public participation in environmental decision-making.18 The NEMC also reviews EIAs and conducts other similar compliance monitoring. As part of that, the NEMC sometimes issues sanctions to persons who develop on or adversely affect protected plots of land.
Typically, environmental cases which reach the higher courts are either criminal or civil actions arising out of the EMA.19
E. Is there any specific national policy addressing childhood exposure to toxic substances? If so, what is considered a safe level of exposure and what is the process for determining safe levels of exposure?
There is no specific national policy in Tanzania addressing children’s exposure to toxins. There are national policies which might in effect provide these protections, but they are not specific. The closest Tanzanian government approach is the National Environmental Policy, which requires that an Environmental Impact Assessment be conducted wherever there is danger of pollution20 and provides directives regarding management of mining areas.
More than three million Tanzanian children are doing hazardous jobs, including at illegal mines where children are exposed to mercury, heavy dust, and work long shifts without safety gear.21 Although the Ministry of Labour and Employment has declared it an offence to employ or procure a child for employment in a mine;22 Tanzanian children remain employed in mines and are subjected to health and environmental hazards. Mineral extractions, which are often uncontrolled and use inadequate mining methods, have led to severe environmental damage and to dangerous living conditions in mining communities, affecting especially children and women.23 Child labourers and children living close to mining sites face a severe danger of mercury poisoning and even young children who are not working are often present during the process by means of which the gold is obtained from the mercury, which occasionally takes place at home (see section I.C).24
The Minamata Convention on Mercury (2013),25 which Tanzania ratified in 2020, mandates ratifying countries to create mandatory national action plans that include steps to stop the most dangerous uses of mercury, promote mercury-free mining practices, guard against mercury exposure in children and pregnant women, and improve the health of miners.26 However, the National Environmental Policy does not mention children in particular.
Typically in Tanzania, workers may sue an employer if their working conditions do not comply with the Ministry of Labour’s health and environmental standards.27 However, it is still not clear if these standards apply to children. Fifteen employers were brought before the labour courts between the 2011-2012 reporting period and one was convicted.28 Although it does not appear that the court prosecuted the employers for violating child labour laws; exposing child workers to dangerous mining conditions raised relevant environmental concerns and the District Court was able to address those.29
It is not unrealistic to expect that Tanzania would include a special provision for children should it implement a national policy specifically with respect to exposure to toxins. The government has previously issued policies dedicated to the protection, preservation, and progression of the nation’s youth – namely, the National Youth Development Policy, which directs national efforts on matters involving the nation’s children.30 This policy briefly mentions the lack of proper environmental education for the nation’s youth,31 and stipulates that a mechanism will be created to involve the youth in the management of the environment.32 While this mention is contained in one discrete provision within the policy, it alludes to the possibility of future policies or legislation that directly address the connection between Tanzania’s children and its environment.
F. Is the country equipped with pollutant release and transfer registers? If yes, do these registers take into account child specific factors regarding the substances for which data is gathered and the type of data generated?
Tanzania is not equipped with a pollutant release and transfer register, or any comparable system. While adding such a register would be in keeping with many laws and policies of Tanzania, there appear to have been no concrete steps taken to implement one.
G. Does the State assert extra-territorial jurisdiction for any environmental issues?
Tanzanian law does not appear to include any causes of action for activities outside of Tanzania, with respect to environmental issues. For example, as discussed above, the EMA limits its class of protected persons to the residents of Tanzania, and focuses its enforcement efforts at the local level. This indicates that the government of Tanzania is focusing its efforts within its borders and even within municipalities.
II. Accessing courts
A. How can environmental cases be brought before national courts?
Tanzania has a hierarchical court system. The highest court in Tanzania’s judiciary, the Court of Appeal, holds the final appeal and judgement from cases coming from the lower courts, especially the High Court.33 The next highest court, The High Court, has unlimited jurisdiction to hear all types of cases.34 The High Court also exercises original jurisdiction on matters of a constitutional nature.35 If the High Court determines that a particular law violates the Constitution, then it shall have the power to afford the government an opportunity to rectify the defect within a period of time. Underneath the High Court, Tanzania has Subordinate Courts, Primary Courts, and specialised Tribunals.36 Subordinate Courts typically receive appeals from the Primary Courts.37 The Primary Courts are the lowest courts in Tanzania’s judicial hierarchy and they deal with criminal and civil cases.38
Based on Tanzania’s hierarchical judiciary system, and depending on how litigants frame their environmental claim or case, litigants can bring a case in front of most of the courts. It is likely that the litigant will have to, first, bring their environmental claim in front of a Primary Court. Based on the ruling from the Primary Court, the litigant can file an appeal with one of the Subordinate Courts. From there, the litigant has the option of bringing the case to the High Court. Few cases are heard in the High Court, partially because environmental enforcement is fragmented at the municipal level in Tanzania.39
Regardless of the court in which the claimant intends to bring their case, the threshold matter is whether there is valid cause of action. In general, the Tanzanian judiciary “has not taken up opportunities that arise to develop the jurisprudence of environmental justice through case law.”40 Where it has, cases have been based on the EMA, which provides both civil and criminal causes of action for violations of its provisions.
The government of Tanzania is one of the most common litigants in actions based on violations of the EMA. For example, in Director of Public Prosecutions vs Kishinadiri Degeshi & Others, the government charged the defendants under the EMA for grazing their livestock in a protected area.41 However, the court determined that there was no offence for such conduct under the EMA, which contemplates only the use of substances or equipment, not livestock. This illustrates the evolving jurisprudence in this area, and the lengths Tanzania still has to go before its environmental protection framework will be as comprehensive as the government would like it to be. This also shows that while courts have read government powers into the EMA as above, there are limits to the lengths they will go to make the EMA a panacea for environmental protection.
While public prosecutors are typically the named parties, the NEMC is frequently involved in some capacity in such actions. For example, in ABG African Link Traders Ltd vs Jitegemee Trading Co. Ltd & Another,42 the plaintiff sued his business partner in a land development deal arising out of the NEMC’s action. The NEMC ordered a portion of the development demolished because it was built on government-preserved land. As a result, the plaintiff sought additional land from the defendant, who refused. It appears from the opinion that the plaintiff raised no protest against the NEMC’s action, and sought only to continue his development in keeping with the NEMC’s regulation.
By contrast, in Anthony Mseke & Others v The Chief Executive National Environment & Management Council of Tanzania & Another, the plaintiff sued the NEMC for compelling him to demolish houses and vacate a plot of land that was allegedly part of a reserve.43 The NEMC prevailed, as the court found that the EMA gave the NEMC the right to compel the destruction of homes it determined to be infringing on environmental regulations.
These cases illustrate both the sway held by the NEMC in maintaining protected land, as well as the Tanzanian courts’ deference to the NEMC’s interpretation of the EMA.
B. What rules of standing apply in environmental cases?
Because the Constitution lacks an express provision guaranteeing the right to a decent, clean, and healthy environment, and mandating the protection and management of the environment,44 Tanzanian judges rely on Article 14 of the Constitution when presented with environmental protection cases. Article 14 provides for the right to life, guaranteeing that “[e]very person has the right to live and to the protection of his life by the society in accordance with the law.”45 Courts have broadly interpreted this “right to life” to include a right to live in a clean and healthy environment. However, while this has been persuasive from a policy standpoint and has influenced decision making, it does not create a clear cause of action for litigants.
The EMA provides environmental rights to individuals affected or with interest in any environmental matter.46 It also provides standing for civil society organisations to file environmental cases on behalf of others whose environmental rights are infringed.47 Additionally, potential litigants should also examine the policies released by the NEMC and the Office of the Vice President to determine if any violations of environmental policies could potentially lead to a hearing in court.
In Festo Balegele & 749 Others v. Dar Es Salaam City Council,48 the applicants sought to stop the respondents from continuing to dump waste in a residential area.49 The applicants argued that by dumping the waste in a residential area, the area turned into a health hazard and a nuisance to the residents.50 The High Court established a foundation for litigating environmental cases, citing Article 14 of the Constitution and agreeing that the applicants had standing because they were residents in the area and thus “aggrieved” by the respondents’ dumping of waste in their area.51 However, the precedential value of this case is limited to the High Court and subordinate courts.
In Felix Joseph Mavika v. Dar es Salaam City Commission,52 the applicants sought an interim order to restrain the Dar es Salaam City Commission from dumping solid and liquid wastes in certain areas in order to prevent pollution and prevent endangering the health and lives of the applicants. The respondents challenged applicants’ standing, and contended that the matter before the court was a public right (because the applicants were alleging a public nuisance) and the applicants therefore needed the consent of the Attorney General under Tanzanian law. The High Court concluded that the applicants did have standing, basing its decision on Tanzania’s Civil Procedure Code and on the doctrine of public interest litigation enshrined in Tanzania’s Constitution. The court stated that the applicants could be heard on the matters raised in asserting both a public right and or special damage likely to be suffered over and beyond the general public.
C. Do these rules of standing differ when children are the complainants and if so in what way?
There is no indication that the rules of standing are different for children. The Constitution and of the laws of Tanzania generally refer to the covered parties as “persons” or “residents,” without qualifications with respect to age. One can therefore assume that – with representation – children have the same rights of standing as others.
D. What is the burden and standard of proof for allegations of personal injury as a result of toxic exposure?
Tanzania does not appear to have a clear statute or provision to address allegations of personal injury due to toxic exposure. However, from case law it appears that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, as was the case in Director of Public Prosecutions vs Kishinadiri Degeshi & Others.53 In that case, the court determined that the prosecutor had failed to carry its burden of showing that the defendants had violated a provision of the EMA. While this was a failure of law and not a failure to present adequate facts, the burden was still on the plaintiff to show the violation. The decision also mentions that the burden that the plaintiffs must carry is proof of the violation beyond a reasonable doubt. It is possible, however, that this standard was heightened since the case in question was criminal, not civil.
Section 192(2) of the EMA provides for a shifting of the burden, stating: “No person shall be deemed to have committed an offence… if that person proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or connivance and that he exercised all due care and diligence to prevent the commission of the offence having regard to all the circumstances.”54 From this, it appears that the standard of proof is in the realm of negligence, since the defendant can refute an allegation by showing lack of knowledge and due care. From these sources it can be surmised that i) the burden of proof is on the plaintiff but the defendant can affirmatively defend claims by showing that he/she/they did not act carelessly and with knowledge, and ii) the standard of proof is similar to, if not explicitly, one of gross negligence.
E. What limitation periods apply in environmental cases?
In Tanzania, limitation periods are governed by the Limitation Act of 1971.55 Pursuant to Section 46 of the Limitation Act, a limitation period provided in another statute may generally be followed, unless the Parliament has expressed a contrary intent or unless other certain limitations apply.56
The Limitation Act does not contain any explicit provisions referring to limitation periods in environmental cases. The EMA does not provide any express limitations and relevant case law does not mention any specific limitation periods. However, in general, limitation periods start running once the cause of action has arisen. Tort actions generally entail a limitation period of three years, while claims for equitable relief with no other prescribed limitation – or any other claim for which the law does not provide a specific limitation – entail a limitation period of six years.57
F. Is legal aid available in environmental cases? If so, under what circumstances?
Because millions of Tanzanians lack access to justice, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark initiated a program called Legal Services Facility (“LSF”) and hired NIRAS (a Danish development consulting firm) to manage the program and its fund.58 The goal of LSF is to support civil society organisations that assist individuals, groups and communities to assert their rights in Tanzanian courts. Due to this program, people in all Tanzanian districts have access to paralegals who have received training facilitated by LSF. Because LSF does not have any exceptions for environmental cases, this legal aid – at least in theory – extends to environmental cases.
III. Remedies
A. What remedies are courts empowered to impose in environmental cases?
In a number of instances in environmental litigation, Tanzanian courts have looked for guidance from other Commonwealth countries for justification to provide litigants with relief.59 However, there are statutory remedies laid out for violations of some environmental protections. Sections 191 through 193 of the EMA provide the available remedies for violations. Under Section 191, the general penalty if no other remedy is specified is a fine of not less than fifty thousand shillings (approximately US $20), or imprisonment for between three months and seven years.60 Section 192 specifies that criminal conviction for violations under the EMA do not preclude civil penalties.61
Section 193 contains the most information about the remedies available for violations of the EMA. It provides that courts may, in addition to “any other order,” order that the materials used to commit the offence (e.g., construction equipment) be forfeited to the government or be otherwise disposed of in a manner chosen by the court.62 Courts may also revoke or cancel any licence, permit, etc. related to the offensive conduct, and may further impose community service on offenders.63
The most important remedy provided for violations of the EMA is the issuance of environmental restoration orders against violators. Under EMA Section 151, an environmental restoration order essentially compels the subject to restore the damage they have done to the environment as best as possible.64 The court can tailor the order to either compel or cease actions on the part of the subject in order to prevent or mitigate environmental damage and attempt to repair damage already done.65 There is not a significant amount of case law to show the use of these orders, so it is not clear which remedies are being used in practice and to what extent.
B. What remedies have courts ordered in environmental cases to date?
As the above discussion shows, courts have a great number of remedies available to them in environmental cases. However, it is not completely clear what specific remedies are applied in particular situations. One case which does illustrate the kinds of remedies available for environmental violations is, Director of Public Prosecutions vs Kilo Kidang'ai & Others.66 This case involved the grazing of livestock on protected lands in violation of the EMA. While the decision was overturned, the trial court originally sentenced the offenders to a fine or two years of jail time if they could not pay, and forfeiture of the livestock in question to the government.67 The jail time was contingent on the accused defaulting on the fine payment,68 so this is likely not a typical remedy for the offence.
However, the fine and confiscation of livestock, while reversed on appeal, were not contested on appeal as inappropriate remedies.69 The court cited Section 193 of the EMA, which (as discussed above) describes the remedies available for violations of the EMA, as granting the power to “[o]rder that the substances, equipment and appliances used in the commission of the offence be forfeited to the Government and, be disposed of in the manner as the court may determine.”70 From this case, one can surmise that courts are certainly making use of the financial and forfeiture penalties available to them in environmental cases.
C. Are there any administrative authorities empowered to act on environmental complaints and if so, how are they empowered to respond to complaints?
The NEMC, described above, was created by the National Environment Management Act No. 19 of 1983.71 The NEMC was established with a broad mandate in order to respond to the national need for such an institution to oversee environmental management issues. The NEMC has the power to undertake enforcement and compliance activities, and review and monitor Environmental Impact Assessments. While the NEMC does not have a specific process for receiving and responding to complaints, it is active in its enforcement of at least some environmental regulations. For example, there are several cases – such as ABG African Link Traders Ltd vs Jitegemee Trading Co. Ltd & Another, in which the NEMC blocked the development of a protected plot of land72 – in which the NEMC has taken action to protect reserved lands from development or other kinds of degradation. The NEMC acts on tips as well as its own investigations, allowing Tanzanians to alert the NEMC in order to prompt the NEMC to investigate the wrongdoers.
IV. Civil and political rights
Freedom of peaceful assembly
A. How is children’s right to engage in peaceful assembly, including protests, protected in national law?
Part III of the Constitution (“Basic Rights and Duties”) enumerates certain key civil and political rights. Article 20(1) of the Constitution provides that every person has the right to freely and peaceably assemble.73 This provision does not expressly state that it applies to children. Rather, children are encompassed in this broad grant of constitutional protection enjoyed by all citizens, regardless of age.
Moreover, Tanzania has ratified and, therefore, has domestic legal obligations under the following treaties relevant to this report: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the “UDHR”), the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights (the “ICCPR”), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (the “CRC”), the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the “African Human Rights Charter”), and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (the “African Child Charter”).74
Article 15 of the CRC states that States Parties shall respect a child’s right to assemble peacefully.75 Article 8 of the African Child Charter provides that every child has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.76 Article 20(1) of the UDHR additionally provides a safeguard for the right to freedom of assembly, stating that everyone has the right to assemble peacefully.77 The ICCPR also protects the right to peaceful assembly and has a possible restriction clause that mirrors that of the CRC.78 Article 11 of the African Human Rights Charter expressly reserves the right to assemble freely with others for all persons, subject to only restrictions provided for by law.79
One example enshrined in case law is an explicit prohibition on government’s requiring protestors to apply for licences before they engage in political demonstrations. For instance, in Rev. Christopher Mtikila v Attorney General,80 the High Court struck down a provision of the Police Force Ordinance requiring protestors to obtain a licence before assembling.81 The High Court held that “the requirement for a permit infringes the freedom of peaceful assembly and procession and is therefore unconstitutional.”82 As with Article 20(1) of the Constitution, these cases do not specifically protect the assembly rights of children, but apply to all Tanzanians.
B. Are there any legal limitations on the right of children to engage in peaceful assemblies?
Article 30 of the Constitution enumerates various factors that mitigate the freedom of expression. It states that the fundamental rights enumerated in Part III of the Constitution (“Basic Rights and Duties”) do not “render unlawful any existing law or prohibit the enactment of any law” for a broad range of purposes, including laws that promote or preserve the national interest “in general.”83 Some of these factors include, inter alia, the maintenance of public peace, public safety, morality and public health, as well as the avoidance of interference with the rights and freedoms of others.84 Article 30 further provides that allegations of violations of the fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution may be brought before the High Court, which has original jurisdiction to hear such claims.85
Article 15(2) of the CRC also provides the right to assembly right cannot be limited other than for reasons in conformity with the law, promoting democracy, preserving national security interests and public safety, maintaining public order, or unless doing so protects public health, morals, or the protection of the fundamental rights of others.86
In Kukutia Ole Pumpun v Attorney General,87 the Court of Appeal of Tanzania held that laws that derogate from fundamental rights are valid so long as two conditions are met.88 First, such a law must not be arbitrary.89 Second, the limitation imposed by such law must not be more than is reasonably necessary to achieve the legitimate object.90 Simply put, the law must be proportional to its aim.91
One example of a restrictive but constitutional law is the Police Force Auxiliary Service Act of 2002 (the “Police Act”).92 The Police Act established the police force in Tanzania, and, pursuant to Section 43, gave officers authority to deny a public assembly if they believe it will prejudice public safety.93 This authority has the potential to undermine the right of Tanzanians in general and children in particular to peaceably assemble and remains protected under Article 30 of the Constitution, as described above.94 Consequently, police officers may issue “orders for the dispersal of any such assembly or procession” if they find it necessary.95
There have been challenges to the discretionary powers provided to law enforcement by the Police Act, but courts have been reluctant to declare it unconstitutional. For instance, on March 18, 2020, a petitioner in Francis Muhingira Garatwa v Attorney General96 filed a lawsuit claiming that Section 43 of the Police Act (requiring notification to the police prior to a public assembly or protest) violated the human rights laid out in Section 18 (freedom of expression) and Section 20 (freedom of peaceful assembly) of the Constitution. The High Court held that Section 43 “does not confer arbitrary powers to [a] police officer,” reasoning that the petitioners failed to explain how the requirement of Section 43 infringed upon their rights or to adduce evidence of police officers arbitrarily disbanding peaceful gatherings.97
C. What penalties can be imposed on children for engaging in school strikes?
Corporal punishment is widely used in Tanzania. Such punishment is lawful pursuant to the National Education Act of 1978 (the “Education Act”).98 The Education Act gives the Minister of Education the right to make regulations that facilitate the education of Tanzania’s youth. Article 60 of the Education Act specifically bestows the right for educational authorities to control and administer corporal punishment in schools.99
To the contrary, the Law of the Child Act of 2009 (the “LCA”)100 stipulates fundamental rights for children and promotes and protects the welfare of Tanzanian children. The LCA prohibits torture, cruel or degrading treatment.101 The LCA, however, does not prohibit justifiable correction.102 It only prohibits disciplinary actions that are unreasonable in kind or degree according to the age, physical and mental condition of the child.
The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child recognises Article 60 of the Education Act as a significant obstacle for asserting children’s rights in Tanzania.103 Despite its recommendation that Tanzania ban corporal punishment in schools, Tanzania has taken no such action. In fact, a 2018 study showed that over 80% of Tanzanian teachers preferred physical punishment to other disciplinary strategies, with many teachers using only corporal punishment as a disciplinary strategy.104
Thus, it is possible that Tanzanian teachers and school administrators may respond to disruptive student behaviour, such as potential strikes and protests, with lawful force.
However, case law indicates that school strikes may be protected so long as they are not disruptive. In 2013, the Tanzanian Court of Appeal in Zakaria Kamwela v The Minister of Education & Vocational Training105 reversed the expulsion of 127 secondary students after they refused to sing the national anthem because of a conflict with their religious beliefs.106 The court justified its reasoning with Article 19 of the Constitution (freedom of religion), but repeatedly mentioned the fact that the students had not disrupted the school assembly or shown any disrespect to other students who sang the National Anthem.107
Freedom of expression
A. How is children’s right to freedom of expression protected in national law? Are there any protections within the national constitution, legislation or developed through case law?
In 1984 the Constitution was amended to include a Bill of Rights, which included protection of the right to expression.108 Specifically, Article 18(a) of the Constitution requires that every citizen has freedom of opinion and expression of his or her ideas.109 Article 18(c) of the Constitution also protects every person from interference with his or her right to communicate.110 However, the Constitution lacks language specific to children and explicitly reserves one significant form of expression (the right to vote) for those over the age of eighteen.111
In 2009 Tanzania adopted the LCA, discussed above.112 This landmark legislation provided a legal framework through which the rights of the country’s children can be protected and realised.113 Before the LCA, legal protections for children were scattered among many statutes, and many laws were outdated, having been derived from the colonial era.114 Section 11 of the LCA, which specifically applies to those under the age of eighteen, provides that a child shall have a right of opinion and that no person shall deprive a child who is capable of forming views the right to express them.115
Articles 12 and 13 of the CRC provides that States Parties shall respect a child’s right to freedom of expression, including the child’s right to seek out and impart information of all kinds “regardless of frontiers,” and through any means or medium the child chooses.116 Article 7 of the African Child Charter provides that, “every child who is capable of communicating his or her own views shall be assured the right to express his opinions freely in all matters and to disseminate his opinions subject to such restrictions as are prescribed by laws.”117 Article 9 of the African Human Rights Charter also expressly reserves the right to express and disseminate opinions within the law for all persons.118 Moreover, both the UDHR and the ICCPR provide the right to freedom of expression.119
In some cases, Tanzanian courts have indirectly supported children’s right to freedom of expression by barring the government’s attempts to prosecute citizens for publishing their views. For example, in Director of Public Prosecutions v Abdul Mohamed Omary Nondo,120 a student was indicted for “publishing false information contrary to section 16 of the Cybercrimes Act….”.121 The Cybercrimes Act was enacted by Parliament in 2015 to criminalise the publishing of false information in a computer system with the intent to mislead the public.122 That law, however, has become a common avenue through which the government suppresses dissenting views. In that case, a student had been abducted by officers and while captive, managed to text a friend that, “he was at risk.”123 The Government contended in its prosecution that the student was disingenuous in his message. The High Court disagreed, reasoning that the student was justified in his concern for his life.124 This case shows that there are limits to the Tanzanian State’s ability to prosecute Tanzanians based on their communications.
Additionally, in 2017 three non-governmental agencies (the Media Council of Tanzania, the Legal and Human Rights Centre, and the Tanzania Human Rights Defenders Coalition) filed a case against the newly enacted Media Services Act of 2016 (the “Media Act”).125 The Media Act made it unlawful to publish anything likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or likely to damage any person in his profession or trade by an injury to his reputation. Simply put, the Media Act targeted dissent. The suit was ultimately successful, thus sparing Tanzanian citizens (including children) from a governmental opportunity to undermine expression.126
The Court of Appeal of Tanzania has also recognised the importance of education to a child’s ability to exercise the freedom of expression. For instance, in Attorney General v Rebeca Z. Gyumi,127 one of the issues was whether the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Law of Marriage Act of 1971 (the “LMA”)128 were too vague and susceptible to being arbitrarily interpreted to deny female children their right to education, which the Court of Appeal stated “is the cornerstone of the freedom of expression.”129 Section 13(2) of the LMA gives a court the authority to grant leave for marriage when parties are below the ages of adulthood under “special circumstances.”130 The lawyer for Gyumi, the girl in question, contended that the provisions of the LMA undermined girls’ progress by allowing them to marry before they completed their secondary education.131 The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s decision by affirming the judgement that section 13(2) was unconstitutional.132
B. Are there any legal limits or restrictions on the right to freedom of expression that specifically apply to children?
As explained above, Article 30 of the Constitution provides for restrictions on fundamental rights in certain circumstances. Moreover, Article 13(2) of the CRC provides that a child’s right to exercise its freedom of expression may be legally restricted if necessary in order to respect the reputations of others or to preserve national security interests, public health and safety, or public morals.133
In 2018, the Minister of Information, Culture, Arts and Sports enacted the Electronic and Postal Communications (Online Content) Regulations (the “Regulations”). In accordance with the Regulations, bloggers, owners of discussion forums, and radio and television streaming services must register with the communications regulator in addition to paying exorbitant licensing and annual fees.134
The Regulations were created to keep “abreast with developments in the electronic communications industry” as well as “provide for offences relating to electronic communications.”135 In reality, the Regulations give the Tanzanian Communications Regulatory Authority (a quasi-governmental authority) vast discretion to control the content published on online platforms. One of the Regulation’s aims is to protect children from indecent online content like hate speech or false information. The result of its enactment, however, was a wide-spread imposition of complex licensing procedures on online users, which, if violated, could lead to either a fine of at least five million Tanzanian shillings or a 12-month prison sentence.136
The Regulations also define terms in broad and ambiguous ways. For example, they define “prohibited” as indecent, obscene, or sadistic content.137 They further define “indecent” as offensive or morally improper.138 Then it defines obscene as content that gives rise to a feeling of disgust.139 Prohibiting online content that causes annoyance fails basic standards of legality and these requirements apply to users and providers alike.
Such a regulatory regime, although not explicitly targeting children, can negatively impact them. In fact, due to the growth and spread of cheaper and more user-friendly computer technology and software, the use of the internet by students has increased dramatically.140 Consequently, the Regulations are likely to significantly constrain the freedom of expression of Tanzanian youth. They are already forcing young content creators off the web; one young Tanzanian YouTuber has stated: “With all of these regulations, vlogging is not worth it.”141 Civil society organisations have also recognised that the Regulations prohibit such a wide range of content that it has become a serious interference with the rights to freedom of expression.142
Tanzanian courts have shown a willingness to enforce these overbroad laws. In 2019, three students from Kampala International University in Tanzania were sentenced to four years in prison after distributing photos of President Magufuli wearing a hijab.143 In 2018, another Tanzanian court sentenced a lawmaker to five months in prison for using abusive language against the President at a rally.144 These instances are not unique to those under the age of eighteen, but they illustrate the breadth of expression that Tanzanian courts have been willing to punish.
Freedom of association
A. How is children’s right to freedom of association protected in national law? Are there any protections within the national constitution, legislation or developed through case law?
Article 20(1) of the Constitution gives citizens the right to freely associate and cooperate with others.145 The drafters of the Constitution thought that associating with others was important to furthering one’s beliefs.146 Conversely, Article 20(4) of the Constitution makes it unlawful to compel any person to join any association or organisation.147 In this way, the Constitution further protects both positive and negative dimensions of the freedom of association.148
It bears repeating that any right provided for by the Constitution applies equally to children. However, the Constitution explicitly limits the political aspects of the freedom of association.149 For example, it is unlawful for a political party to promote interests of any faith or religious groups, tribal group, place of origin, race, gender or only a particular area within any part of Tanzania.150 Individuals, organisations or political parties cannot assemble or demonstrate as they please; they must follow the procedure prescribed by law.151
Article 15(1) of the CRC requires that state parties recognise children’s right to freedom of association.152 The African Child Charter also provides for the freedom of association,153 as does the African Human Rights Charter.154The ICCPR likewise requires freedom of association for every individual,155 while the UDHR also safeguards the right to freedom of association.156
B. Are there any legal limits or restrictions on the right to association that specifically apply to children?
As explained above, Article 30 of the Constitution provides for restrictions on fundamental rights in certain circumstances.
Part VIII of the LCA requires a local government authority to safeguard and promote the welfare of the children within its area of jurisdiction.157 In doing so, the LCA grants authority to local officers to prevent a child in custody from associating with an adult charged with an offence unless that adult is a relative of the child in question.158
While the right to freedom of association is not specifically derogable, as explained above, the Constitution permits laws that limit any fundamental human right (including the right to freedom of association) in certain circumstances.
Article 15(2) of the CRC also provides that a child’s right to exercise its freedom of association may be legally restricted if necessary in order to respect the reputations of others or to preserve national security interests, public health and safety, or public morals.159
Access to information
A. How is children’s right to access information protected in national law? Are there any protections within the national constitution, legislation or developed through case law?
Tanzania is a party to a number of international and regional agreements which provide for commitments and obligations for access to information and the right to information, recognising the right to information as a tent of democratic governance.160 Although these are not specific to children, their rights extend to every person.
Article 18(b) of the Constitution grants every person the right to seek, receive and disseminate information regardless of national boundaries.161 It further specifies that every person shall have a right to be informed of various events and issues of import.162 Moreover, Article 11 of the LCA gives children who are able to form an opinion permission to participate in decisions which affect their well-being.163
In 2006, the Tanzania Ministry of Information released a draft Freedom of Information Bill (2006) containing provisions for forms of access to information, right to grant access, refusal of information, period within which information requests should be responded to, protection of whistleblowers, the time limit for determining requests, protection of sources and the right to appeal.164 One such provision proposes a period of 21 days for the release of information requested by citizens.165 Nevertheless, the bill still has not been submitted to Parliament for first reading, even after receiving numerous comments.166
Additionally, the Constitution has been going through a review process since 2011, with the proposed draft containing more elaborate and explicit provisions on freedom of expression, freedom of information and media freedom.167
Article 13(1) of the CRC safeguards a child’s right to receive and impart information freely, regardless of the subject matter or medium of transmission.168 The ICCPR broadly protects the right to receive and impart information and ideas of any kind,169 while the UDHR similarly provides a safeguard for the right to access information.170 Article 9 of the African Human Rights Charter expressly reserves the right to receive information for all persons.171 The African Child Charter also mandates primary education for every child, designed to foster intellect and a respect for human rights, and includes development of respect for the environment and natural resources on the extensive checklist for appropriate curriculum development.172
B. Are there any legal limits or restrictions on the right to access information that apply specifically to children?
As explained above, Article 30 of the Constitution provides for restrictions on fundamental rights in certain circumstances.
The Regulations require online content hosts and providers to take all possible measures to ensure that children do not register, access or contribute to “prohibited” content.173 However, given how ambiguous the Regulations are, governmental interference with online information is highly discretionary and not easily predictable. In addition, the significantly financial sanctions threatened by the Regulations likely deters online participation, and disproportionately affects the country’s youth.174
The CRC affirms in Article 13(2) that the exercise of a child’s right to access information may be restricted by law if necessary to preserve the rights or reputations of others or to protect public safety, order, morality, or national security.175
C. Does the national curriculum for schools include environmental education?
Education and training in Tanzania is undertaken by several Ministries, NGOs, communities and individuals. These ministries include that of Education and Culture, Regional Administration and Local Government, Science, Technology and Higher Education and the Ministry of Education, Zanzibar.176
There are three educational levels: basic education consisting of two years of pre-primary education and seven years of primary education.177 The student then goes to a secondary educational level after passing the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE). Secondary education consists of two stages: the ordinary level, which is four years, and the advanced level, which is two. Students who are financially able then go on to achieve an education at the Technical and Higher Education Level made up of three years study and leading to various occupations.
In the 1990s, the Ministry of Education and Vocational Training (the “Ministry of Education”) incorporated environmental education courses into the secondary school curriculum at all levels as integrated subjects. Schools therefore did not teach environmental courses as standalone subjects. This integrative approach combined knowledge across subject areas to develop a more interdisciplinary understanding of key ideas.178
Despite national efforts, however, Tanzania struggles with access to such secondary education, specifically among females. In response, in 2004 Tanzania launched the Secondary Education Development Plan (“SEDP”), with the aim of improving access to secondary education while achieving equity and quality.179 Moreover, Tanzania recognised the pivotal role of education in national development and that modern economies require an educated and trainable labour force with secondary education as the minimum qualification.180 Tanzania did see an increase in secondary educational access, but a number of challenges persisted, such as poor performance in secondary education examinations and insufficient infrastructure.181
Accordingly, in 2010 Tanzania adopted the Secondary Education Development Plan II (“SEDP II”) to address the aforementioned problems. SEDP II implemented an updated curriculum that focused on integrating topics such as improved sanitation and greening of the environment, health safety, climate, and sustainable mining.182
Tanzania’s integrative strategy is not without its flaws, however. Some teachers find it difficult to incorporate environmental education into broader subjects because there is no clear formula for implementation.183 One study shows that 78% of students at a particular school could describe the meaning of “environment.”184 When probed, however, on specific applications to daily events (like employment issues or disease in the community), many students floundered.185 One issue is that most teachers admitted to not having adequate knowledge of the material themselves.186 Another issue was a lack of administrative support.187
***
End notes
1 Tanzania (United Republic of)'s Constitution of 1977 with Amendments through 2005 (‘Constitution’). Available here.
2 Ibid. Articles 9 and 27.
3 Ibid. Article 27.
4 Ibid. 13.
5 Christabel Manning and Seka Kasera, Tanzanian Legal System and Legal Research, NYU Law, (August 2020). Available here. See University of Minnesota, Tanzania Human Rights Jurisprudence, Human Rights Library. Available here. See also, Constitution, Art. 63(3)(e), providing that the National Assembly may “deliberate upon and ratify all treaties and agreements to which the United Republic is party and the provisions of which require ratification.”
6 Daniel Mirisho Pallangyo, Environmental Law in Tanzania; How Far Have We Gone?, Law Environment and Development Journal (2007). Available here.
7 Hamudi Majamba, Environmental Rights Jurisprudence in Tanzania: Review of Judicial Precedents, University of Dar es Salaam, (2005), p.7. Available here.
8 Supra note 5 (noting the presence of unreported cases from the High Court and Court of Appeal).
9 Environmental Management Act of 2004, at Part IV Environmental Planning, No. 44(f). Available here.
10 Ibid.
11Ibid. at Part II General Principles, No. 4.
12 Ibid. at Part II General Principles, No. 5.
13 Ibid.
14 Environmental Management Act of 2004, Part VI Environmental Impact Assessment and Other Assessments.
15 Ibid. at No. 81 (“Any person, being a proponent or a developer of a project or undertaking of a type specified in the Third Schedule to this Act … shall undertake or cause to be undertaken, at his own cost, an environmental impact assessment study.”)
16 Ibid. (“Any person who contravenes subsection (3), commits an offence.”)
17 Supra note 5.
18 See generally, National Environment Management Council, United Republic of Tanzania. Available here.
19 See below, section II.A.
20The United Republic of Tanzania, National Environmental Policy, (December 1997). Available here.
21 Melissa Thaxton, Integrating Population, Health, and Environment in Tanzania, Bridge (2007). Available here.
22 Human Rights Watch, Tanzania: Hazardous Life of Child Gold Miners, (2013). Available here.
23 Minamata Convention on Mercury (2013). Available here.
24 Human Rights Watch, Governments Should Sign, Ratify Mercury Treaty, (2013). Available here.
25 The United Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Labour, Employment and Youth Development, National Youth Development Policy, (December 2007). Available here.
26 Ibid. at Section 3.19 Environment and Natural Resources:“Most young people are not knowledgeable with environmental issues. In few communities youth have been involved in preserving and conservation of the environment. To a large extent, youth are not adequately involved in management of the environment and conservation of natural resources.”
27 Ibid. “There shall be a mechanism to involve the youth in the development, protection and conservation of the natural resources and environment as stipulated in the respective policies and strategies.”
28 Supra note 5.
29 Ibid
30 Ibid
31 Ibid
32 Ibid
33 Ibid
34 See Majamba, supra note 7, p.11.
35 Ibid
36 Director of Public Prosecutions v. Kishinadiri Degeshi & Others (Criminal Appeal No.339 of 2018) [2019] TZCA 359 (31 October 2019). Available here.
37 ABG African Link Traders Ltd vs Jitegemee Trading Co. Ltd & Another (Land Case No.85 of 2014) [2019] TZHC 105 (29 October 2019). Available here.
38 Anthony Mseke & Others vs The Chief Executive National Environment & Management Council of Tanzania & Another (Land Case No.151 of 2012) [2018] TZHCLandD 3 (28 February 2018). Available here.
39 E. S. Massawe, Environmental Rights, Protection and Management in Tanzania: Justification for their Inclusion in the Would-Be New Constitution, Lawyers Environmental Action Team (2012), at p.15. Available here.
40 See Constitution, supra note 1. Art. 14.
41 See Massawe, supra note 39, p.17.
42 Ibid.
43 Festo Balegele and 749 others v Dar Es Salaam City Council, Misc. Civil Cause No. 90 of 1991, 3 January 1992, cited within Compendium of Judicial Decisions in Matters Related to Environment – National Decisions (Vol. 1), Available Available here.
44 Ibid. at [87].
45 Ibid. at [88].
46 See Festo, supra note 43, at 89-90. (“It is not disputed that the applicants are residents of Kunduchi Mtongani. This taken together with the several facts that I have outlined above as not disputed make the applicants persons “aggrieved” by the decision of the respondent.”)
47 Felix Joseph Mavika v. Dar es Salaam City Commission, Civ. Case No.316 of 2000 ( 23 October 2001). Available here.
48 Krista Mahr, Tanzania struggles to end child labor from the lure of gold, Reuters, (3 April 2017). Available here.
49 Human Rights Watch, Child Labor and Mercury Exposure in Tanzania’s Small-Scale Gold Mines, (28 August 2013). Available here.
50 Employment and Labour Relations Act, 2004, Article 33(9). Available here.
51 Ibid.
52 Ibid.
53 Director of Public Prosecutions v. Kishinadiri Degeshi & Others (Criminal Appeal No.339 of 2018) [2019] TZCA 359; (31 October 2019). Available here.
54 Environmental Management Act of 2004, Part XVI Compliance and Enforcement, No. 192(2). Available here.
55 Aisha Ally Sinda and Wilbert B. Kapinga, Litigation and enforcement in Tanzania: overview, Mkono & Co. Advocates. Available here.
56 Law of Limitation Act of 1971, Sec. 46. Available here.
57 Ibid. at Part III: Suits, No. 6, 11.
58 NIRAS, Legal aid secures everyday justice for everyday problems in Tanzania, (2015). Available here.
59 See Massawe, supra note 39, p.5. Available here.
60 Supra note 54. Part XVI Compliance and Enforcement, Sec. 191.
61 Ibid. at Sec. 192. (“A conviction for an offence committed under this Act, shall not exonerate any person or body corporate from any civil proceeding which may be instituted under this Act.”)
62 Ibid. at Sec. 193.
63 Ibid. (“The court may further order that any licence, permit or other authorization given under this Act and to which the offence relates be cancelled.”)
64 Ibid. at Part XI Environmental Restoration, Easements and Conservation Orders, Sec. 151. (“An environmental restoration order shall be issued to- (a) require the person on whom it relates to restore the environment as near as it may be to a state in which it was before the taking of the action…”).
65 Ibid.
66 Director of Public Prosecutions v. Kilo Kidang’ai & Others (Criminal Appeal No.340 of 2017) [2019] TZCA 355; (30 October 2019). Available here.
67 Ibid., at [1]-[2].
68 Ibid., at [2].
69 Ibid., at [2]-[3].
70 Ibid., at [10]-[11].
71 See generally, Devex, Background on National Environment Management Council (NEMC). Available here.
72 ABG African Link Traders Ltd vs Jitegemee Trading Co. Ltd & Another (Land Case No.85 of 2014) [2019] TZHC 105; (29 October 2019). Available here.
73 See Constitution, supra note 1, Art. 20(1).
74 See University of Minnesota, Ratification of International Human Rights Treaties – Tanzania, Human Rights Library. Available here.
75 G.A. Res. 44/25, Convention on the Rights of the Child, Art. 15(2) (November 20, 1989). Available here.
76 Organisation of African Unity (OAU), African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, Art. 8, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/24.9/49 (July 11, 1990). Available here.
77 G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 20(1) (December, 10 1948). Available here.
78 G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 21 (December 16, 1966). Available here.
79 Organisation of African Unity (OAU), African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, Art. 11, (June 27, 1981) CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21 I.L.M. 58 (1982). Available here.
80 Rev. Christopher Mtikila v. Attorney General [1994] TZHC 12; (24 October 1994); 1995 TLR 31 (TZHC). Available here.
81 Ibid.
82 Ibid.
83 See Constitution, supra note 1, Art. 30(2).
84 Ibid., Art. 30(1)-(2).
85 Ibid., Art. 30(3)-(4).
86 See UNCRC, supra note 75. Art. 15(2).
87 Kukutia Ole Pumpun and Another v. Attorney General and Another [1993] TZCA 14; (23 July 1993); 1993 TLR 159 (TZCA). Available here.
88 Ibid. at [166].
89 Ibid.
90 Ibid.
91 Ibid.
92 Police Force and Auxiliary Services Act of 2002. Available here.
93 Ibid., Art. 43(c)(3), p. 25.
94 See Constitution, supra note 1, Art. 30(2)(b).
95 Ibid., Art. 43(c)(4), p. 25.
96 Francis Muhingira Garatwa & Others v. The Attorney General (Consolidated Misc. Civil Cause No.4 of 2018 & Misc. Civil Cause No.8 of 2018) [2020] TZHC 362; (18 March 2020). Available here.
97 Ibid. at [17].
98 National Education Act of 1978. Available here.
99 Ibid., Art. 60(o), p.30.
100 Law of the Child Act of 2009. Available here.
101 Ibid., Art. 13, p.16.
102 Ibid., Art. 13(1), p.16.
103 Peter Newell, United Republic of Tanzania: Briefing for the Human Rights Council, Universal Periodic Review, (2011). Available here.
104 Yusuph Maulid Kambuga et al., Corporal Punishment as a Strategic Reprimand Used by Teachers to Curb Students’ Misbehaviours in Secondary Schools: Tanzanian Case, Int’l J. of Educ. and Res., (April 2018), at [187], Available here.
105 Zakaria Kamwela & Others vs The Minister of Education & Vocational Training & Another (Civil Appeal No.3 of 2012) [2013] TZCA 167; (12 December 2013). Available here.
106 Ibid. at [45].
107 Ibid. at [3].
108 Damas Daniel Ndumbaro, The Cyber Law and Freedom of Expression: The Tanzanian Perspectives, International Journal of Science Arts and Commerce, (2016) at p. 16. Available here.
109 See Constitution, supra note 1, Art. 18(a).
110 Ibid. Art 18(c).
111 Ibid. Art. 5(1).
112 Sara Cameron, Tanzania Passes landmark Law of the Child, UNICEF (29 July 2020). Available here.
113 Ibid.
114 Ibid.
115 See Law of the Child Act, supra note 100. Sec. 11.
116 See UNCRC, supra note 75. Arts. 12, 13.
117 See ACRWC, supra note 76. Art. 7.
118 See ACHPR, supra note 79. Art. 9.
119 See UDHR and ICCPR, supra note 77-78. Arts 19.
120 Director of Public Prosecutions v. Abdul Mohamed Omary Nondo (RM. Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2019) [2019] TZHC 195; (23 December 2019). Available here.
121 Ibid., at [1].
122 Cybercrimes Act of 2015, p.15. Available here.
123 See Abdul Mohamed Omary Nondo, supra note 120, at [3].
124 Ibid. at [16].
125 Media Services Act of 2016. Available here.
126 See generally, Committee to Protect Journalists, East African Court Rules that Tanzania’s Media Services Act Violates Press Freedom, (28 March 2019). Available here.
127 Attorney General vs Rebeca Z. Gyumi (Civil Appeal No.204 of 2017) [2019] TZCA 348; (23 October 2019). Available here.
128 The Law of Marriage Act of 1971. Available here.
129 See Gyumi, supra note 127, at [3].
130 See The Law of Marriage Act, supra note 128, Section 13(2)(b).
131 See Gyumi, supra note 127, at [14] (reasoning that girls who get pregnant typically drop out of school to tend to familial obligations, thereby undermining her intellectual ability to exercise her freedom of expression).
132 Ibid. at [51].
133 See UNCRC, supra note 75. Art. 13(2).
134 Ashnah Kalemera, Tanzania Issues Regressive Online Content Regulations, CIPESA (29 June 2019). Available here.
135 The Electronic and Postal Communications (Online Content) Regulations of 2018, at p.9. Available here.
136 Ibid. at [79].
137 Ibid. at [5].
138 Ibid. at [4].
139 Ibid. at [4]-[5].
140 Ronald Tarimo and George Kavishe, Internet access and usage by secondary school students in Morogoro Municipality, Tanzania, 13 Int’l Journal of Educ. and Dev. using Info. and Commc’n Tech. 56, 57 (2017). Available here.
141 Shaeyera Dark, Strict new internet laws in Tanzania are driving bloggers and content creators offline, (6 July 2018). Available here.
142 See The Electronic and Postal Communications (Online Content) Regulations, supra note 135. Art. 19.
143 RegionWeek, Magufuli jails three students accused of ‘sharing on Internet’ a photo of him wearing a Hijab, (15 July 2019). Available here.
144 Fumbuka Ng’wanakilala, Tanzania opposition MP jailed for five months for insulting president, (26 February 2018). Available here.
145 See Constitution, supra note 1, Art. 20(1).
146 Ibid.
147 Ibid., Art. 20(4).
148 See Raphael Kamuli, Freedom of Association in Tanzania, p.4. Available here.
149 Ibid.
150 See Constitution, supra note 1, Art. 20(2).
151 See Kamuli, supra note 148, at p.6.
152 See UNCRC, supra note 75. Art. 15(1).
153 See ACRWC, supra note 76. Art. 8.
154 See ACHPR, supra note 79. Art. 10.
155 See ICCPR, supra notes 78. Art. 22.
156 See UDHR, supra notes 77. Art. 20.
157 See Law of the Child Act, supra note 100. Part VIII.
158 Ibid.
159 See UNCRC, supra note 75. Art. 15(2).
160 Ashnah Kalemera et. al, The Right to Information in Tanzania: Insights on the Laws, Policies and Practices, Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and South Africa, (January 2015). (“They include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of 1966, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948, Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa of 2002 which affirms the right to information in Africa, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) of 1981.”). Available here.
161 See Constitution, supra note 1, Art. 18(b).
162 Ibid., Art. 18(d).
163 See Law of the Child Act, supra note 100. Art. 11.
164 See Kalemera, supra note 160, at p.4.
165 Ibid. at p.6; see also, The United Republic of Tanzania: Draft Bill for the Freedom of Information of 2006. Available here.
166 Ibid.
167 Ibid. at p.5.
168 See UNCRC, supra note 75, Art. 13(1).
169 See ICCPR, supra note 78, Art. 19(2).
170 See UDHR, supra note 77, Art. 19 (“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”).
171 See ACHPR, supra note 79. Art. 9.
172 See ACRWC, supra note 76. Art. 11.
173 See The Electronic and Postal Communications (Online Content) Regulations, supra note 135. Part III, Sec. 13.
174 See Dark, supra note 141.
175 See UNCRC, supra note 175, Art. 13(2).
176 United Republic of Tanzania: Ministry of Education and Culture, Education in a Global Era: Challenges to Equity, Opportunity for Diversity, (30 November 2000), at p. 2. Available here.
177 Ibid.
178 Beatus Mwendwa, Learning for Sustainable Development: Integrating Environmental Education in the Curriculum of Ordinary Secondary Schools in Tanzania, The Journal of Sustainability Education (February 2017). Available here.
179 The United Republic of Tanzania: Ministry of Education and Culture, Education Sector Development Programme, 2004-2009, at i. Available here.
180 Ibid. at v.
181 Ibid.
182 See The United Republic of Tanzania: Ministry of Education and Culture, Education Sector Development Programme. 2010-2015, at viii. Available here.
183 See Mwendwa, supra note 178.
184 Ibid.
185 Ibid.
186 Ibid.
187 Ibid.