A historic judgment that could transform the fight for human rights in Tanzania, the Court of Appeal has ruled in favor of expanding access to public interest litigation.
In a historic judgment delivered on 13th June 2025, the Court of Appeal of Tanzania made a bold decision to protect the rights of every citizen. The court ruled that parts of a law—known as the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act (BRADEA)—were unconstitutional, meaning they went against the country’s highest law: the Constitution. These parts were added in 2020 and had made it very hard for ordinary people to go to court and defend the Constitution when the government or leaders broke the rules. The appeal was heard before a panel of three Justices of the Court of Appeal: Justice Rehema Levira, Justice Wilfred Rumanyika, and Justice Gerald Ngwembe.
The case was brought by human rights defender Onesmo Olengurumwa, who was represented by a strong team of legal experts—Prof. Issa Shivji, Mpale Mpoki, Dr. Rugemeleza Nshala, and John Seka. They argued that the new rules were unfair, blocked access to justice, and weakened the power of citizens to protect the Constitution.
The Controversial Restrictions (Before the Ruling)
Before this ruling, the law had been changed to block public interest cases. Despite its intention to promote justice, the Act had strict limitations that made it hard to use in practice . These changes were seen as a way to silence activists, lawyers, and citizens who wanted to stand up for justice. Here’s how:
- It forced people to show they were personally affected before filing a case—even if the issue affected the whole community or country.
- It mixed up two different laws meant for personal cases and public interest cases, it closed the door on public interest litigation, which is critical in cases where the victims are marginalized or afraid to speak up.
- It protected top leaders like the President or Chief Justice by saying only the Attorney General could be sued on their behalf.
- It forced people to try other legal options first before going to court to defend the Constitution—even if those options were not helpful.
The Court of Appeal ruling struck down these limitations, allowing:
- Public interest litigation: People or groups can now file cases in defense of constitutional rights, even if they’re not the direct victims.
- Access to justice for all, especially for the voiceless, poor, or oppressed.
Advocate Tito Magoti, a prominent High Court Advocate and human rights defender, welcomed the ruling, calling it “groundbreaking” and a “significant milestone” for access to justice. He noted that the judgment marked a crucial turning point in affirming judicial oversight over parliamentary powers and privileges, stating that it delivers “a nail on the growing spirit of impunity in the community, especially when top leaders are involved.”
Magoti elaborated that the Court of Appeal nullified the controversial 2020 amendments to Section 4(2) of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act (BRADEA)—provisions that had previously required petitioners to demonstrate personal interest in order to challenge a law or practice in court. “By removing this barrier, the Court has restored the ability of citizens and civil society to challenge unjust laws in the public interest,” he explained.
He further highlighted that the Court also invalidated provisions that had extended immunity to senior public officials, including members of the executive, parliament, and judiciary. “We have once again witnessed the significance of maintaining a functional judiciary to oversee how power is exercised by other branches of government—especially Parliament,” Magoti said.
This serves as a pivotal reminder of constitutional supremacy. The right enshrined under Article 26(2) of the Constitution—to take legal action in defense of the Constitution—has now been actualized in its truest form,” he emphasized.
it improves access to justice, particularly for public interest litigants who were previously prohibited from petitioning against certain laws and practices unless they submitted an affidavit demonstrating their personal impact from the law being contested. This development reinforces the fundamental principle of the rule of law, asserting that no individual is considered superior before the law and that everyone must be held accountable for their actions and omissions. Lastly, it has fostered confidence in the judiciary and serves as a stern reminder to other state organs that accountability is essential, and no individual should seek refuge under immunity to sustain impunity.
According to Advocate Magoti, the judgment also strengthens accountability by confirming that no individual is above the law, and everyone—regardless of position—must be held accountable for their actions and omissions.
He concluded by noting that the decision significantly improves access to justice, especially for public interest litigants who had previously been barred from petitioning the courts unless they could prove direct, personal harm. “This development reinforces the fundamental principle of the rule of law. It has fostered public confidence in the judiciary and stands as a stern reminder to other state organs that constitutional rights cannot be undermined by procedural technicalities.”
The Court has given Parliament 12 months to repeal the unconstitutional sections of the law. If it fails to act, those provisions will automatically lose legal effect. This ruling is more than a legal victory—it is a victory for every Tanzanian. It means that citizens no longer need to suffer personal harm before seeking justice. Anyone can now stand up against unconstitutional laws and practices.
It reaffirms the power of the people, strengthens accountability, and ensures that justice is not limited to the privileged few. Most importantly, it shows that the Judiciary remains a strong and independent guardian of the Constitution.
In a country where access to justice has often been blocked by technicalities, this ruling marks a new chapter—one where the Constitution truly belongs to the people.