AbriefingbytheLegalandHumanRightsCentre
LHRC Page 2
KeyMessage:
Freedomof
Expressionisa
fundamentalright
withinademocratic
state.Thisrightis
promotedbythe
constitutionbut
limitedinpractice
underspecificlaws.
LHRCrecommends
theenactmentofa
lawtoensure
Freedomof
Expressionisfully
protectedas
providedunderthe
Constitution.
Freedom of Expres‐
sion FoE is consti‐
tutionally protected
but limited. The right
to FoE includes the
right to seek, receive
and impart informa‐
tion and ideas. It has
a broad scope. In
terms of imparting
information
and
ideas, it includes the
right to express one‐
self orally, in writing,
orthroughanymeans
of communication in‐
cluding
electronic
means.
FoEalsoincludesthe
righttoseekandre‐
ceiveinformation
fromothers,includ‐
ingtherighttoobtain
andreadnewspapers,
listentobroadcasts,
surftheInternet,and
participateinandlis‐
tentodiscussionsin
publicandprivate
forums.
FoE is promoted in
the Constitution of
the United Republic
of Tanzania of 1977,
Article 18. In addi‐
tion, it is encouraged
in international legal
frameworks such as
Article 19 of the Uni‐
versal Declaration of
Human
R i g h t s
UDHR , Article 19 of
the
International
CovenantonCiviland
Political
Rights
ICCPR ,andArticle9
oftheAfricanCharter
on Human and Peo‐
ple’sRights(ACHPR).
TheICCPRoutlines
therestrictions
placedonseeking,
receivingandimpart‐
inginformation.This
meansthatFoEcan
berestrictedbythe
Statesolongasthe
restrictionmeetsthe
followingtest:
1. Theinterfer‐
encemustbein
accordancewith
alaworregula‐
tion;
2.
Thelegally
sanctionedre‐
3.
strictionmust
protectorpro‐
moteanaim
deemedlegiti‐
mateininterna‐
tionallaw;1 and
Therestriction
mustbeneces‐
saryforthepro‐
tectionorpro‐
motionofthe
legitimateaim:
Theimpactof
restrictions
mustbepropor‐
tionate–the
harm/limitation
ofFoEmustnot
outweighthe
benefitsin
termsofthein‐
terestprotected.
WhiletheICCPRpro‐
videsausefulover‐
viewoftheserestric‐
tions,theserestric‐
tionshavenotbeen
furtherdetailedinthe
Constitutionofthe
UnitedRepublicof
Tanzaniaof1977.
IssuestobeAddressed:
There are a number of important issues to resolve in order to ensure that FoE is upheld and pro‐
tectedforthecitizensofTanzania.
1.
AbsenceoflawstoprotectFoEasprovidedbytheConstitution:
Asnotedinthe2015TanzaniaHumanRightsReportbyLHRC,‘Despitetheconstitutionalguarantee
and protection, there is currently no law in Tanzania safeguarding the constitutional guarantee of
righttoinformation'Neitheristherealegislationtosafeguardothercomponentsofthisright.Thisis
animportantcomponentofprotectingFoE.Legislationisrequiredtodefinetherolesandresponsi‐
bilitiesoftheStateandthecitizens,andtoprovidetheinfrastructureneededtoprovideguidanceon
howtodealwiththeinfringementofthisright.Effortshavestalledsince2006toenactalawtopro‐
tect this freedom. As noted in the 2015 Tanzania Human Rights Report, the constitutional review
processwasanopportunitytorectifytheshortcomingsofthelawbutthisprocesshasalsostalled.
TheabsenceoflawsmeansthatFoEisnotsafeguardedinTanzaniaasitshouldbe.
1.
Thisincludesonlythefollowinglegitimateaims:(1)respectfortherightsandreputationsofothers,or(2)protectionofnational security,
publicorder(ordrepublic),publichealthormorals.
Page 3
2.
ToomanylawsthatlimitFoE:
OnthecontrarythereareanumberofexistinglawswhichareseentoundermineFoEinTanzania.
TheseincludetheNewspaperAct,1976,theZanzibarNewspapersAct(1976),NationalSecurityAct
(1970), Civil Services Act (1989),Public Code of Ethics (1995),Tanzania Broadcasting Act (1993),
PublicServicesAct(2002),theTanzanianCommunicationsRegulatoryAuthority(2002)andmostre‐
centlytheCyberCrimeAct(2015)andtheStatisticsAct(2015).TheTanzaniaHumanRightsReports
provideanalysisoneachoftheselaws.Theselawsfavourthegovernmentwithoutconsideringthe
publicinterestandareconsideredtoviolateFoEasprovidedunderArticle18oftheConstitution.A
numberoftheselawswereenactedduringadifferentpolitical context.Themedialandscapehow‐
everhaschangedinTanzaniaoverthepasttenyearswiththeproliferationoftheInternet,mobile
phoneandsocialmediatechnology.TheirrelevanceneedstobereconsideredduringtotheConstitu‐
tionalreviewprocess.
3.
CyberCrimeActhascreatedfearamongpeoplewhousesocialmediaandtheInternet
foroversightandadvocacyactivities:
TheCyberCrimeAct(2015)isnotonlyahindrancetoFoEbutalsoanobstacletodevelopment.The
criminalisation of cyber activitiescreates fear amongst thoseinvolved in monitoring and advocacy
on human rights. It also isolates the constitutional rights to seek, receive and publish information.
Whiletheregulationofcyberactivitiesisrecognisedimportant(inpreventingillicitandillegalactivi‐
ties),theCyberCrimeActplacestoomuchemphasisonthecriminalisationofcyberactivitiesandnot
enough stress on regulation and protection of legitimate activities. As noted in the 2015 Tanzania
Human Rights Report, ‘the law also contains controversial provisions relating to criminalisation of
sharingofinformation,extensivepolicepowersofspeechandseizure,surveillancewithoutjudicial
authorisationaswell[as]numerousvaguelydefinedoffences.’ThereisariskthatthisActishaving
an impacton the activities of CSOs to use ICT, such as mobile phone technology, in their advocacy
andgovernmentoversightactivities.2
The Web Index (thewebindex.org) an international index, exists to measure the extent to which a
country’scitizensenjoyrightstoinformation,opinion,expression,safetyandprivacyonline.In2014,
Tanzaniaranked67outof86countriesonissuesrelatedtofreedomofexpressionandopennessin
termsofInternetaccessandyouthwhichismorelimitedcomparedtoUganda,Kenya,andNigeria.3
ThiswasmadepriortotheenactmentoftheCyberCrimeActandtheElectronicandPostalCommu‐
nicationsActwhicharelikelytohaveanegativeimpactonthisranking.
4.
Freedomofthemediaisbeingattacked:
AnimportantissueaffectingFoEisfreedomofthemedia.InTanzaniathequalityofmediareporting
is often under scrutiny, and sensationalist reports can affect citizens’ opinions on the reliability of
mediareporting.In2014,Afrobarometer–whichconductspublicopinionsurveysondemocracyand
governanceinAfrica–indicatedanincreaseinthenumberofcitizensinTanzaniawhofeltthatthe
governmentshouldcontrolwhatthemediapublishes,comparedtotwoyearsearlier(26%in2012
and44%in2014).Thistrendisworrying.Thereisariskthatthisdatacouldbeusedtojustifypoliti‐
calaimstofurtherrestrictfreedomofthemedia.Instead,thefocusshouldbeonimprovingthequal‐
ityofmediareportstostrengthentheopinionofcitizensontheimportanceofanindependentmedia.
Furthermore,ashighlightedabove,lawsexistwhichaffectthefreedomofmedia.
2.
3.
ForfurtherinformationandanalysisontheAct,pleaseseeanalysisbytheCollaborationonInternationalICTPolicyinEastandSouthernAfrica(CIPESA)report.
Pleaseseehttp://thewebindex.org/about/formoreinformationabouttheIndexandthedata.
Page 4
Instead,thefocusshouldbeonimprovingthequalityofmediareportstostrengthentheopinionof
citizensontheimportanceofanindependentmedia.Furthermore,ashighlightedabove,lawsexist
whichaffectthefreedomofmedia.Asnotedinthe2015TanzaniaHumanRightsReport,TheEastAf‐
ricannewspaperwasbannedbythegovernmentinJanuary2015,citingsection6oftheNewspaper
Act thatdeals with registration.The ban was issuedfollowing anumber of articles that were pub‐
lished,whichwerecriticalofthegovernment.
5.
The Statistics Act threatens the collection, use, and dissemination of independent sta
tistics:
Ashighlightedinthe2015TanzaniaHumanRightsReport,thatanumberofissuesofconcernwith
theStatisticsAct(2015),namely(a)creatinguncertaintyaroundwhocangeneratestatisticsandthe
authorisationsrequired,(b)therulesaroundthedisseminationofstatistics,(c)obstaclestowhistle
blowingwithoutprotection,and(d)restrictionsonthepublicationofcommunicationofcontentious
statisticalinformation.4ThereisariskthattheStatisticsActcouldbeusedasapoliticaltooltocen‐
sordatathatisunfavourabletothegovernment.TheActcanalsorestrictresearchbeingundertaken
bycivilsocietyandindependentresearchers.
6.
Accesstoinformationisstilllimiteddespiteeffortstomakemoreinformationpublic:
Thegovernmenthasmadecommendableeffortstomakeinformationmorepublic.However,thisin‐
formationisnotupdatedregularlyandcanbedifficulttoaccess.TheCollaborationonICTPolicyfor
EastandSouthernAfrica(CIPESA)producedareportonaccesstoinformationthatnotedthatthis
informationisnotregularlyupdated,isofteninnon‐reusableformatsandmaynotnecessarilymeet
languagerequirements.
KeyOpportunitiesandMessages
DraftingofbillsrelatedtoFoEneedtoberevisedinaparticipatoryprocess:
1.
InorderforArticle18oftheConstitution(whichrelatestoFreedomofExpression)tobetrulymean‐
ingfulthereisaneedtoenactlawsthatfacilitateitsfullimplementationandprotection.Lawsneedto
recognisetheright,dutiesandresponsibilitiestowardsprotectingFoEofbothgovernmentandciti‐
zens.Thisdoesnotrequirestartingfromthebeginning,asbillshavealreadybeendrafted.However,
theseshouldbereviewedandrevisedinapublicandconsultativemannertoensuretheyaddressthe
currentcontext.
ThemovementtoenactnewlawswasfirststartedbytheCoalitionofCivilSocietyin2000.Aspartof
this process the Coalition drafted bills including an Access to Information Bill. The government
adoptedtheideaofanAccesstoInformationBill,howeverduringthedraftingprocess;someofthe
suggestions were not taken into consideration. In 2015, the Access to Information Bill was made
readyforParliamentbutboththeprocessandthebillitselfwerecriticised.Mediaandcivilsociety
stakeholdersdidnotfeeltheyhadbeenconsideredduringtheprocess–theywantedtohaveaninde‐
pendentbodytooverseetheprocess’conduct,butthelawdidnotprovideforthis.Judicialpowers
werealsogiventotheexecutiveblockandtakenawayfromtheJudiciary.Intheend,thebillwasnot
enacted.Giventhestrengthsandweaknessesoftheprocess,thereisanopportunitytostartitover
againandensureparticipationandaninclusiveprocess.
Billsshouldnotbeplacedunder‘acertificateforurgency’whichallowsthegovernmenttofasttrack
theprocess,aswasdonewiththeAccesstoInformationBill.Thisdoesnotallowforenoughtimefor
civilsocietytooverseetheprocess.InthecaseoftheAccesstoInformationBill,werecommendthat
theparticipatoryprocessshouldbeledbytheMediaCouncilofTanzaniawithlegalassistancefrom
LHRC.
4.
Pleaseseep.62
Page 5
2.
Amendprotocolsandrepeallaws:
IfnewbillsthatrelatetoFoEarebroughttothetableandenactedintolaw,thentheselawsshould
haveprovisionsthatrepealotherprovisionsinexistinglawslimitingFoE.Wealsorecommendthat
theNewspaperActisrepealedalltogetherasitisarchaicandrestrictive.
3.
ReformtheCyberCrimeActandStatisticsAct:
GiventheissueswiththeCyberCrimeActwerecommenditbereformed.Ifanewbilltosafeguard
FoEweretobeenacteditcouldincludethepositivecomponentsoftheCyberCrimelawthatfocuson
theregulationofcyberactivity.Analternativeoptionistoamendthelawinordertoshiftitsfocusto
theregulationofcyberactivities,withaspecificsectiononoffences.
Ashighlightedabove,thereareanumberofconcerningelementsoftheStatisticsAct.Parliamentand
theLawReformCommissionneedtofocuseffortsonrevisingthisActtoprovidefurtherclarification
aroundtheuncertaintieswithinthelaw.
4.
Createaprovisiontoestablishadefencetoinstitutionsandmembersoftheinstitutions
tosafeguardtheirfreedomofspeech
We recommend that Parliament through its Parliamentary Committee for Legal and Constitutional
Affairsintroducesadefenceclauserelatedtothedefinitionof‘publicinterest’and‘publiccause’in
thelaw,as‘publicinterest’hasbeenputforwardasareasonfordenyingfreedomofspeechinthe
past.ThiscouldcomeintheformofaprovisionwithinanewlawonFoE,oranyActpromotingFoE.
5.
Enactalawtoestablishaself‐regulatorybodytolistentoanddecideonissuesofpro‐
fessionalismandethicsinthemedia
Ourmessagetothegovernmentandparliamentistosupporttheeffortsofmediastakeholdersinset‐
tingupamediaregulatorybody.Thisistoincreasetheprofessionalismofthemediaindustryasa
whole,andwhichislikelytoreducethenegativeopinionsaroundmediacontent.Thiscouldthere‐
foreimprovepublicopinionofthemedia.Itisadditionallyimportantthatthepowersofthisregula‐
torybodyremainamongmediastakeholdersthemselvestoavoiditbecomingapoliticaltool.
6.
Investmoreinmakingupdatedpublicinformationpublicandaccessible:
Foranydemocraticnation,freedomofspeechisfundamentalfordevelopment.Informationactsasa
bridge between the public and the state. We need prompt and accurate information. We urge the
government to strengthen its efforts in ensuring that all public information is made available, up‐
dated,andaccessibletothepublic.
August2016
FacilitatedbyUHAKIKIProject;aprojectfundedwithUKaidfromtheUKgovernment
LHRCisanon‐governmentalorganisationwithcorefundingfromtheRoyalNorwegianEmbassy
andtheEmbassyofSweden