Demands for post-poll justice as Tanzania accused of weaponising counterterrorism laws

Counterterrorism laws are intended to address serious threats to public safety. Amnesty uses “weaponising” to describe turning those laws into political tools against people who criticise the government, support opposition parties or demand reforms. The concern matters because legal powers can make dissent appear criminal and discourage people from speaking or protesting.

The article does not identify a specific counterterrorism prosecution. It gives a related example: opposition leader Tundu Lissu was put on trial for treason before the election, preventing him from standing. Amnesty also says security agencies targeted government critics, opposition supporters, media organisations and dissenting ruling-party members.

Amnesty says the alleged tactic has worsened a wider crackdown. Tanzania’s authorities deny widespread abuses and say they respect human rights. If such laws continue being used against dissent, critics may face fear, restricted political participation and reduced public accountability.

The most precise death toll in the article is 518. That figure comes from a commission of inquiry’s report, handed to President Samia in April. The opening account also describes the violence as causing at least 500 deaths a year earlier. These figures show the scale of the election-related crisis.

The article does not provide a total number of injured people or people detained. It does describe survivors who suffered gunshot wounds. Meshack Sane, shot in the leg in Arusha, underwent more than five major operations and still needed surgery. The text also discusses Tundu Lissu’s imprisonment, but gives no overall detention count.

That missing information matters because deaths alone do not show the full human cost. Injuries created continuing medical bills and financial hardship. Families are still seeking assistance, while the full inquiry report remains unpublished and no official has been criminally prosecuted, according to Amnesty.

A large vote share does not by itself prove that an election was competitive. The opposition rejected Samia Suluhu Hassan’s 98% result because her two main challengers were excluded. This matters because voters may not have had a genuine choice between the leading political alternatives.

The article identifies Tundu Lissu, leader of the main opposition Chadema party, as one excluded challenger. He was put on trial for treason before the poll, preventing him from standing. Lissu had been demanding electoral reforms. The article does not give the reason why the other main challenger was excluded.

Samia has insisted that the election was fair and transparent. The opposition described the result as a “mockery” of democracy. The dispute remains connected to the wider crisis, including allegations of excessive force, demands for reform and Lissu’s continuing legal case, whose verdict was due the following week.

The crisis involved several institutions with different responsibilities. Security forces were accused of shooting at protesters and using tear gas. Opposition parties rejected the election result and demanded reforms. Courts handled Tundu Lissu’s treason case, which prevented him from contesting the poll. These roles matter because policing, political competition and judicial decisions shaped both the election and its aftermath.

The BBC verified videos showing police shooting toward protesters. Armed units blocked demonstrators and fired tear gas. Lissu’s trial continued after the election, and his lawyers later raised concerns about access. A commission of inquiry recorded 518 deaths, while President Samia created another commission to identify those behind the violence.

The article does not describe a specific election commission or its actions. It also says no official had been criminally investigated or prosecuted for excessive force, according to Amnesty. That leaves unresolved questions about institutional responsibility and accountability.

Failure to investigate alleged abuses leaves victims without a formal route to truth, justice or compensation. It can also deepen poverty, especially when people suffer permanent injuries or lose the family member who provided income. Families may be forced to rely on their own limited resources while officials remain unpunished.

Mwajuma Hamisi’s husband, George Kisivani, was shot in Arusha and died two days later. She was left supporting five children by selling vegetables. Meshack Sane underwent more than five major operations after being shot in the leg, but could not afford further treatment. He said relatives were told no government budget had been allocated for victims.

Amnesty said no official had been criminally investigated, prosecuted or punished for excessive force. The inquiry’s full report has not been published. Without transparent investigations, victims may receive neither accountability nor practical help, and public trust in state institutions can continue to decline.

Publishing the commission’s full report would make its findings available to victims, families and the public. It could clarify how the violence unfolded, what evidence was gathered and whether security forces or other actors played a role. Transparency matters because Amnesty says withholding the report entrenches secrecy.

An independent investigation could examine the verified videos, deaths, injuries and individual accounts without being controlled by people implicated in the crackdown. It could determine responsibility and refer credible cases for prosecution. A fair process could also support decisions about medical assistance and compensation for victims, although the article does not say that a programme has been created.

This would offer a different path from continued denial and unanswered claims. President Samia has already established another commission to identify those behind the violence. Amnesty says it must comprehensively address the role of security forces. Publishing findings and acting on them would be the crucial next steps.

Free elections give voters meaningful choices and allow governments to gain authority through public consent. Access to lawyers protects a defendant’s ability to answer charges. Freedom of protest lets people demand reform, while accountability ensures state power is not above the law. Together, these principles make rights enforceable rather than merely promised.

The article illustrates the risks when they fail. Tundu Lissu was prevented from standing while facing a treason trial, and he later went on hunger strike after alleging restricted lawyer access. Videos verified by the BBC showed police shooting toward protesters. Amnesty said no official had been criminally investigated or prosecuted for excessive force.

These failures can weaken trust, silence criticism and leave victims without justice. Tanzania’s authorities deny widespread abuses and say they respect human rights. Transparent inquiries, fair court access, open political competition and prosecution of proven wrongdoing would strengthen the rule of law.