Wakilii

Legal and Human Rights Centre and Others v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (Reference No. 30 of 2020)

East African Court of Justice · [2026] EACJ 7 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference brought before the East African Court of Justice challenging the Electronic and Postal Communications (Online Content) Regulations, 2020 for alleged violation of Treaty provisions on freedom of expression
Decision
Reference dismissed for want of merit

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The East African Court of Justice held that the Electronic and Postal Communications (Online Content) Regulations, 2020 of Tanzania do not violate Articles 6(d), 7(2) and 8(1)(c) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community. Applying the three-tier test for limitations on freedom of expression, the Court found that the impugned regulations are prescribed by law, pursue pressing and substantial objectives including protection of children and public security, and employ proportionate means. The Court distinguished interpretation sections from substantive provisions, held that mandatory licensing requirements are administrative and not violations of press freedom, and found that prohibited content definitions in the Second Schedule are sufficiently clear. The Reference was dismissed with each party bearing its own costs.

Outcome

Reference dismissed for want of merit

Facts

Four Tanzanian civil society organisations challenged the Electronic and Postal Communications (Online Content) Regulations, 2020 before the East African Court of Justice. The Applicants alleged that the Regulations violated freedom of expression by imposing mandatory registration and licensing for online media, bloggers and social media users; imposing heavy fees; granting unfettered powers to the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority; containing vague and ambiguous definitions and obligations; providing for prohibited content that is too wide and subjective; allowing disclosure of third-party information without safeguards; and imposing excessive criminal penalties. The Respondent argued that the Regulations comply with the Treaty and aim to protect rights of persons affected by unregulated online expression, particularly children, and are consistent with national laws and international instruments. Some of the impugned regulations were amended or repealed during the pendency of the Reference.

Issues

  1. Whether the provisions of Regulations 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9(a), 9(b), 9(c), 9(d), 9(e), 9(f), 9(j), 9(k), 9(l), 10, 11, 12(a), 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Electronic and Postal Communications (Online Content) Regulations are in violation of Articles 6(d), 7(2) and 8(1)(c) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community.
  2. Whether the parties are entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Reference dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Freedom of Expression — Three-Tier Test for Limitations
A limitation on freedom of expression is consistent with the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community if it satisfies a three-part test: (a) the limitation must be prescribed by law and be clear and accessible to citizens; (b) the objective of the law must be pressing and substantial; and (c) the State must have chosen a proportionate means to achieve its objectives.
Interpretation Sections — Not Subject to Three-Tier Test
An interpretation or definition section in legislation provides the meaning of concepts used within the legal framework and cannot in principle jeopardize the enjoyment of rights enshrined in the law. Consequently, an interpretation section cannot be subjected to the three-tier test for limitations on fundamental rights.
Freedom of Expression — Mandatory Licensing of Media
Mandatory licensing of online media services is a purely technical and administrative registration procedure that does not amount to a violation of freedom of the press where it serves to regulate and monitor a sensitive sector, enhance responsible online environment, and verify credibility and reliability of media outlets.
Right to Appeal — Provision in Complementary Legislation
Where regulations do not expressly provide for a right of appeal against administrative decisions, but complementary legislation of the same State provides such a right, the regulations do not violate the right of access to justice. Laws of a State are complementary and aim at governing society as a whole.
Freedom of Expression — Cultural Sensitivities in Regulation
In a country with different cultures, a lawmaker may require media to take into account trends and cultural sensitivities of the general public. Assessment of whether media has infringed such a regulation must be made in concreto, taking into account the particular circumstances of each case and the existence of various cultural communities.
Protection of Children — Regulation of Online Content
A State has an obligation under international law to protect children from harmful online content. Regulations requiring online content providers to ensure that children do not access prohibited content and to provide content filtering mechanisms and parental controls pursue a legitimate aim and are proportionate where they impose duties that can be discharged through age verification and software filtering tools.
Mootness — Deleted Regulations
Courts do not decide cases where no live dispute exists between the parties. Where regulations challenged in a reference have been deleted by subsequent amendments, the issue is moot and the court will decline to determine it as the decision would have no practical effect.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Articles 4, 6(d), 7(1)(a), 7(2), 8(1)(c), 27(1), 30(1)
  • Electronic and Postal Communications (Online Content) Regulations, 2020 Regulations 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, 1977 Article 18(a), Article 30(2)
  • Electronic and Postal Communications Act Chapter 306 s.103(1)
  • Tanzania Communication Regulatory Authority Act Cap.172 s.39(1)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 19(2), Article 19(3)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 18
  • United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 3
  • European Convention on Human Rights Article 10(1)

Cases cited (11)

  • Burundi Journalists Union v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi (Reference No. 7 of 2013)
  • Media Council of Tanzania and 2 Others v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (Reference No. 2 of 2017)
  • Lohe Issa Konate v Burkina Faso (App No. 004/2013)
  • Mark Chavunduka and Ray Choto vs Republic of Zimbabwe (citation not provided)
  • Pan African Lawyers Union and 4 Others v Attorney General of The Republic of Tanzania (Reference Nos. 25 and 27 of 2020)
  • Kaos GL vs Turkey, 2016, § 49
  • Human Rights Awareness & Promotion Forum v Attorney General of Uganda and The Secretariat of the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (Reference No. 6 of 2014)
  • Justice Okumu Wengi vs Attorney General of Uganda (2007) 600 KaLR
  • Legal Brains Trust (LBT) Ltd v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (Appeal No. 4 of 2012)
  • Mucic et al., (IT-96-21), Trial Chamber, 16 November 1998, § 1192
  • Rutaganda (ICTR-96-3), Appeals Chamber, 26 May 2006, § 591

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Legal and Human Rights Centre and Others v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (Reference No. 30 of 2020) [2026] EACJ 7 (31 March 2026)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.