Facts first: Hard questions on 2025 Human Rights Report

DAR ES SALAAM: THE Tanzania Human Rights Report 2025 released by the Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC) has entered the public domain at a moment when the country is still reflecting on the events surrounding the October 2025 elections. It is a report that raises serious concerns and speaks to issues that no society should ignore.

Allegations of loss of life, restrictions on freedoms and questions around accountability must always be treated with the highest level of seriousness. However, the credibility of such a report ultimately depends not on the weight of its language, but on the strength of its evidence.

This is where legitimate concerns begin to emerge. One of the most striking features of the report is the presentation of casualty figures related to the October 29th unrest. Readers are presented with multiple estimates ranging from hundreds to thousands of deaths, drawn from different sources.

Yet, these figures are not reconciled or clearly verified. They sit side by side without a clear explanation of which ones are confirmed, which are estimates and which remain allegations. In a matter as sensitive as loss of life, such inconsistencies cannot be treated lightly.

They demand careful verification and clear methodological grounding. Equally concerning are claims relating to alleged mass graves, concealment of bodies and overwhelmed morgues. These are among the most serious allegations that can be made in any human rights report.

Yet, the report itself acknowledges that some of the evidence relied upon, such as videos circulating on social media, has not been independently verified and in some instances has been disputed by institutions mentioned. Without forensic confirmation, medical records or independently verified site investigations, such claims remain allegations rather than established facts.

The report also relies heavily on digital content, including videos and media investigations, to support its conclusions. While such material can be useful in documenting specific incidents, it has limitations.

A video can confirm that an incident occurred, but it cannot, on its own, establish the scale of events across the country. Moving from isolated, verified incidents to broad national conclusions requires a level of evidence that goes beyond digital verification.

The question that arises is whether that threshold has been met. Importantly, the report itself notes that it did not conduct fieldwork and relied largely on internal monitoring and secondary sources.

ALSO READ: Leadership, unity and political stability: A reflection on Tanzania’s governance journey

This is a significant limitation, particularly when making claims of widespread violations and large-scale fatalities. It raises a fundamental question: how were these conclusions reached without direct, independent verification? Beyond the content, the timing of the report also raises important questions.

It has been published just days before the Presidential Commission of Inquiry, which was specifically established to investigate the post-election events, completes or advances its work.

This timing is difficult to ignore. It inevitably shapes public perception and sets a narrative ahead of an official process that is meant to establish the facts. This leads to a fair and necessary question: why not wait? Why not incorporate the findings of the Commission to strengthen the report’s credibility and ensure that its conclusions are grounded in verified evidence? Publishing such a consequential report before the conclusion of an official inquiry risks pre-empting the very accountability it seeks to promote.

This is not to dismiss the concerns raised. On the contrary, issues such as civic space, digital rights, gender-based violence, and access to justice remain important and deserve continued attention. But where the report makes its most serious claims, it must meet the highest standard of proof. Human rights advocacy carries significant influence.

It shapes national conversations, informs international perspectives, and affects public trust. With that influence comes responsibility, the responsibility to distinguish clearly between what is known, what is estimated, and what is yet to be proven.

As the country awaits the findings of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry, it is essential that space is given for a thorough, transparent, and evidence-based process to unfold. The pursuit of truth must be guided by facts, not assumptions. In matters of this magnitude, getting it right is more important than getting it first.