ARUSHA, TANZANIA – 11 March 2026 – The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the African Court) on 6 march delivered its judgment in Application No. 046/2020: Ado Shaibu and 5 Others v. United Republic of Tanzania.
During the hearing, the Applicants were represented by Mr. Chidi Odinkalu, Mr. Ibrahima Kane, and Mr. Don Deya (joining virtually), as well as Mr. Fulgence Massawe and Mr. Ombeni Kimaro, who appeared in person on behalf of the Pan African Lawyers Union (PALU).
In its decision, the Court reconfirms that Article 41(7) of Tanzania’s Constitution violate these obligations as it prevents any legal challenge to the election of a presidential candidate once that candidate has been declared elected by the Electoral Commission. As a result, individuals are effectively denied access to a court to contest presidential election results. In doing so, the African Court found that Tanzania violated Articles 1 and 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Article 1 requires States to adopt legislative measures to give effect to the rights guaranteed in the Charter, while Article 7 protects the right to have one’s case heard by a competent court.
Mr. Ado Shaibu, the 1st Applicant, stated:
“This case belonged to Seif Shariff Hamad. 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. I am merely a bridge for his vision We should not lose sight of what we have actually achieved here. 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. This is the accountability Maalim dreamed of, and I am humbled to see it finally upheld.”
On the same date, the African Court also delivered its judgment in Applications 040 and 043/2020 (consolidated), in which several provisions of the country’s electoral laws were again challenged. Also here, the African Court found that Article 74(12) of the Tanzania’s Constitution and 119 (13) of the Zanzibar Constitution, preventing courts from reviewing decisions of the National Electoral Commission and the Zanzibar Electoral Commission, violate the principles of equality before the law and the right to a fair hearing.
Commenting on both judgements, counsel Fulgence Massawe stated:
“The African Court has made it clear that Tanzania must close the constitutional gaps that prevents citizens from challenging key aspect of the electoral process, including presidential election results and decisions of the electoral commissions. A democracy cannot function when such an important part of the electoral process is beyond judicial oversight. By directing the state to amend its laws, the Court affirmed that voters must have a meaningful way to question electoral outcomes and decisions when they believe their rights were violated.”
PALUS’ RESPONSE TO JUDGEMENT:
While the Applicants welcome the African Court’s recognition that Tanzania breaches its obligations under the African Charter on different levels, the legal team expresses deep concern and dissatisfaction with several aspects of the judgment.
The African Court declared the majority of the allegations inadmissible, reasoning that the Applicants should first have brought their claims before national courts and exhaust available legal remedies. Counsels for the Applicants find this reasoning difficult to reconcile with the circumstances of the case, particularly where recognized exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies rule apply, including situations involving serious and massive human rights violations, a climate of fear, or where the State already has knowledge of the alleged violations.
The Court further held that the Applicants failed to provide sufficiently substantiated evidence of serious and massive human rights violations. The Applicants regret this position, noting that they submitted extensive documentation, including reports and statements from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
The legal team is also deeply concerned by the length of time taken for the Court to deliver its judgment. The case was filed in the immediate aftermath of the 2020 Tanzanian presidential election, and the prolonged delay in adjudicating claims concerning electoral rights risks undermining the effectiveness of regional human rights protection, particularly where most claims are ultimately deemed inadmissible.
Commenting on the judgment, lead counsel Chidi Odinkalu stated:
“The Court has acknowledged that Tanzania violated the Charter by denying meaningful judicial review of a presidential election challenge. However, by declaring most claims inadmissible on procedural grounds, the Court missed an opportunity to fully address systemic weaknesses in Tanzania’s electoral framework. Justice delayed and narrowly framed sends a troubling signal for electoral accountability on the continent.”
The Applicants and their legal team will review the full text of the judgment once it becomes available and will provide further comment in due course.
BACKGROUND OF CASE:
The Applicants filed this case on 20/11/2020 and it was served on the Government of Tanzania on 02/05/2021. Tanzania was given 30 days in which to file its Response. Finally, 90 days late, Tanzania filed a response, a general denial without evidence. Thereafter, the applicants filed a reply, a request for hearing witnesses (which was denied), several more sworn affidavits of witnesses, and a comprehensive brief setting forth the law and facts in support of their claims. On 28/02/2025, the Court granted the application of the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Centre and the Institute for Human Rights and Democracy in Africa to submit a brief to the Court as amici curiae (friends of the court), given their expertise and experience in litigating electoral disputes.
The 6 applicants are all citizens of Tanzania: Ado Shaibu, the Secretary-General of the political party Alliance for Change and Transparency (“ACT”) Wazalendo, one of the most prominent opposition political parties; two candidates, one for the Parliament and one for the House of Representatives; and three registered voters. When the Application was filed, there was a seventh applicant, Mr. Seif Sharif Hamad, the presidential candidate for ACT Wazalendo. He passed away on 17/02/2021 and, accordingly, the African Court struck his name from the Application.