Organised violence in the name of demonstration during, after the 2025 General Election

DAR ES SALAAM: TRUTH must be told. Tanzania slipped into post-election violence and unrest following the 2025 General Election, as confirmed in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the incidents that occurred during and after the polls.

This finding is significant, particularly when viewed through a human rights lens, given the narrative advanced by some activists and opposition actors that framed the events primarily as demonstrations, while attributing violations to the government and security organs for allegedly denying people their right to organise demonstrations. The report further identifies political factors as one of the drivers of the unrest.

As noted by retired Chief Justice Mohamed Chande Othman, these included “political issues such as demands for a new Constitution, concerns about the functioning of multiparty democracy, internal grievances within political parties, and calls for reforms to the Independent National Electoral Commission and the broader electoral system.” While the report does not rank these factors, the prominence given to political issues, appearing first among the five identified causes, suggests their central role in shaping the events that followed.

Other contributing factors cited include economic and social conditions, shortcomings in leadership and public service responsibility, and elements linked to international dynamics. Against this backdrop, critical question emerges: demonstrations, how were they organised, how did they unfold, and how were they intersected with the rights of others?

The Commission confronted these questions directly. Before examining the motives of those involved, it first sought to determine whether the events of October 29, 2025 could legitimately be classified as peaceful demonstrations deserving protection under international, regional, and national human rights frameworks.

Its conclusion is clear: they were not. Drawing from a comprehensive analysis of legal standards, including Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, the Commission reaffirmed that the right to assemble is fundamental, but not absolute.

It may be subject to limitations in the interest of national security, public safety, public order, public health, morality, and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. In applying these standards to the facts, the Commission found that the events in question fell outside the scope of protected peaceful assembly. First, the so-called demonstrations did not comply with basic legal requirements.

They were neither peaceful nor conducted in accordance with the law, including the obligation to notify authorities as required under national legislation. Second, the timing of the unrest was constitutionally problematic.

The violence was deliberately orchestrated on a day legally designated for the General Election, thereby interfering with the constitutional right of citizens to vote and to be voted for. In this sense, the actions did not merely express dissent; they actively undermined the rights of others.

ALSO READ: Pandemic Fund facilitates Community Actors to report public health signals in 90 high-risk districts

Third, participants were found to have been armed with a range of weapons, including stones, metal rods, machetes, and in some instances firearms and explosives. Such conduct is fundamentally incompatible with the definition of peaceful assembly under both domestic and international law. Fourth, the events resulted in widespread fear, destruction of property, and threats to life. These outcomes, by their very nature, remove such acts from the protection afforded to peaceful demonstrations.

On the basis of this evidence, the Commission concluded that what occurred during and after the election was not peaceful protest, but organised violence accompanied by serious breaches of public order. As such, these acts fall outside the legal protections normally associated with the right to assemble. Beyond this legal determination, the Commission also uncovered a deeper layer of organisation.

It found credible evidence that the unrest was planned, coordinated, financed, and executed by individuals who had undergone prior training. Notably, the Commission documented instances where no fewer than 500 youths were assembled and kept in buildings, forests, and camps across various parts of the country for more than 28 days, where they were sheltered and trained in preparation for carrying out acts of violence on the day of the General Election.

Recruitment efforts targeted vulnerable groups, including youths and informal sector workers, some of whom were offered small sums of money and promises of better opportunities. Training and mobilisation took place in the weeks leading up to the election, with a deliberate strategy to trigger disturbances simultaneously in multiple locations in order to overwhelm security responses.

The objectives behind these actions were equally revealing. Evidence presented to the Commission indicates that the primary aim was to disrupt or prevent the conduct of the General Election. At the same time, some participants used the moment to express grievances and send a message to the government, particularly around socio-economic concerns.

Others exploited the situation for criminal purposes, including theft and looting of businesses and private property. Taken together, these findings challenge a simplified narrative that frames the events solely as demonstrations.

They instead point to a more complex reality, one in which the language of protest intersected with organised violence, criminal opportunism, and competing claims of rights. It is within this complexity that a human rights analysis must be situated.

The events that unfolded carried significant consequences, eroding hard earned gains in Tanzania’s multiparty democracy and placing strain on its longstanding reputation as a beacon of peace in the region.