East African court to rule on case challenging Tanzania’s online content regulations

State attorneys at the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) in Arusha today. PHOTO/FILBERT RWEYEMAMU   


Arusha. The East African Court of Justice (EACJ) is set to deliver its verdict in Reference No. 30 of 2020, a case filed by the Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC) and three others against the Attorney General of Tanzania.

The petitioners are challenging the Electronic and Postal Communications (Online Content) Regulations, 2020, which were published in the Government Gazette on July 17, 2020.

They argue that the regulations infringe upon fundamental democratic principles, including freedom of expression, transparency, accountability, and good governance.

They have asked the regional court to order the Attorney General to repeal the regulations, citing their inconsistency with the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community (EAC), which safeguards citizens’ rights and freedoms.

The applicants further allege that the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority (TCRA) was granted excessive powers under the regulations, which they claim contravene Articles 6(d), 7(2), and 8(1)(c) of the EAC Treaty.

The case was heard on Thursday, November 13, 2025, before a five-judge bench led by the Principal Judge of the Court’s First Instance Division, Justice Yohane Masara, who sat alongside Justices Richard Wejuli, Richard Muhumuza, Dr Gacuko Leonard and Kayembe Kasanda.

The petitioners were represented by senior advocates Jeremia Mtobesya and Peter Majanjara, while the government was represented by Senior State Attorneys Stanley Kalokola and Daniel Nyakiha.

In their submission, LHRC and its co-applicants contended that several provisions of the online content regulations undermine media freedom and the right to free expression.

They urged the court to compel the Attorney General to repeal them in compliance with Tanzania’s obligations as an EAC member state.

However, the government’s legal team dismissed the claims, maintaining that the regulations were enacted to provide guidance that balances freedom of expression with public interest.

“Your Lordships, Regulations 10 and 13 have already been repealed and are no longer in dispute. The remaining provisions pose no issue.

We urge the applicants’ counsel to interpret the law in its entirety rather than focusing on isolated clauses,” said Mr Kalokola.