Judgment in Application No. 046/2020 and Others – Ado Shaibu and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania
Arusha | 6 March 2026
On 6 March 2026, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights delivered its judgment in Application No. 046/2020 and Others – Ado Shaibu and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania, a case arising from violations of political participation rights surrounding Tanzania’s 2020 general elections. The Applicants, represented by the Pan African Lawyers Union and other partners, challenged actions by the Tanzanian authorities that they argued undermined their ability—and that of the broader electorate—to participate meaningfully in the democratic process.
The Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA), together with the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Center, participated in the proceedings as amicus curiae, providing submissions on international standards relating to the right to participate in government and the importance of an open civic space for free and fair elections.
Background to the Case
The case stems from events before, during, and immediately after the 2020 general elections in Tanzania. According to the Applicants, several state institutions—including the National Electoral Commission (NEC), the Zanzibar Electoral Commission (ZEC), the Tanzania Police Force, and the Tanzania Intelligence and Security Service—engaged in actions that compromised the integrity of the electoral process.
The Applicants alleged that electoral authorities engaged in discriminatory practices on political grounds and that security forces carried out acts of violence, torture, intimidation, arbitrary detention, and harassment against candidates, supporters, and voters. They argued that these actions prevented them from campaigning freely and participating effectively in the electoral process as candidates and voters.
On this basis, the Applicants asked the Court to find violations of several provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, including the rights to equality and non-discrimination, participation in government, and the obligation of states to give effect to the Charter’s rights. They also sought orders requiring Tanzania to investigate the alleged violations, hold responsible actors accountable, adopt legal and institutional reforms, and provide reparations.
Jurisdiction and Admissibility
Having confirmed jurisdiction, on admissibility, the Court upheld Tanzania’s objection regarding the non-exhaustion of local remedies for most of the alleged violations. The Court found that the Applicants had not sufficiently demonstrated that domestic remedies were unavailable, ineffective, or unduly prolonged with respect to the alleged violations of several Charter provisions.
Nevertheless, the Court held that the application was admissible in relation to the alleged violation of Articles 1 and 7(1) of the Charter concerning the lack of a legal remedy to challenge the results of a presidential election.
Findings on the Merits
The Court’s substantive findings focused on Article 41(7) of the 1977 Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, which bars courts from inquiring into the election of a presidential candidate once that candidate has been declared elected by the electoral commission.
The Court found that this constitutional provision effectively prevents individuals from challenging the outcome of a presidential election before an independent tribunal. In doing so, it removes a critical judicial safeguard in the electoral process and denies individuals the right to seek a remedy where they believe electoral laws or procedures have been violated.
The Court held that this restriction violates Article 7(1) of the African Charter, which guarantees the right to have one’s cause heard by competent national bodies. The Court further found that Tanzania had failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 1 of the Charter to adopt legislative and other measures necessary to give effect to the rights protected under the Charter.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the prohibition on judicial review of presidential election results undermines the right to an effective remedy and is incompatible with the guarantees provided under the African Charter.
Reparations and Orders
The Court ordered Tanzania to take constitutional and legislative measures to address the violation identified.
Specifically, the Court directed the State to amend Article 41(7) of its Constitution within one year in order to align it with the requirements of the African Charter and ensure that presidential election results may be subject to judicial scrutiny.
The Court also ordered Tanzania to publish the judgment in both English and Swahili within six months of notification. The publication must appear on the websites of the judiciary and the Ministry responsible for constitutional and legal affairs, and the text must remain accessible to the public for at least one year.
In addition, Tanzania was instructed to submit a report to the Court within six months detailing the measures taken to implement the judgment, and thereafter to provide periodic updates every six months until the Court determines that full compliance has been achieved.
Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Significance of the Judgment
This decision represents an important development in the jurisprudence of the African Court regarding electoral accountability and access to justice in electoral disputes. By finding that a blanket constitutional prohibition on challenging presidential election results violates the right to a fair hearing, the Court reaffirmed the fundamental role of judicial oversight in safeguarding democratic governance.
The ruling underscores that electoral processes must include effective mechanisms through which citizens and candidates can contest irregularities and seek redress. Without such safeguards, the right to participate in government—protected under regional and international human rights law—risks being rendered ineffective.
The judgment therefore contributes to strengthening regional standards on electoral justice and reinforces the principle that constitutional or legislative provisions cannot shield electoral processes from judicial scrutiny where fundamental rights are at stake.
