Tanzania

Published May 2025

Relevant Legislation

Summary

Tanzania has strengthened its whistleblower and witness protection laws over the last few years, however, there is still much to be reformed. The country updated its original Whistleblower and Witness Protection Act of 2015 in 2022 and released corresponding regulations in 2023. While both have significantly improved the legal framework for whistleblowers, there are still many weaknesses in the nation’s whistleblower and media laws that leave whistleblowers vulnerable.

There seems to be a dearth of public information on whistleblowing in Tanzania. This is likely due to both a lack of reporting on whistleblowers – a direct consequence of the country’s repressive media laws – and a lack of an effective infrastructure for disclosing misconduct. Additionally, there is still a culture of secrecy surrounding misconduct in the country. When combined with Tanzania’s particularly poor record on media freedom and the vague terms in the existing whistleblower laws, it is no surprise that very few cases break through and gain the attention necessary to effect change.

Whistleblower Laws and Policies

The key whistleblower legislation in Tanzania is the Whistleblower and Witness Protection Act of 2015, which was revised in 2022 (the Act). Following the 2022 revisions, Tanzania’s government released the Whistleblower and Witness Protection Act, Regulations in 2023 (the Regulations). These are designed to provide detailed guidance on matters tied to witness and whistleblower protection. The revised Act and regulations together tackle some of the weaknesses of the original Act, though not all of them. Section 3 (c) of the Act defines a whistleblower as “any person who discloses wrongdoing following the provisions of this Act”. It has a formulaic manner and procedure, which also differentiates between a witness and the actual whistleblower who makes the disclosure. The Act also distinguishes between a “public interest disclosure” and wrongdoing, which are different categories of irregular conduct.

The Act creates protections for whistleblowers who, in good faith, disclose information on past, ongoing, or imminent crime. A disclosure should be made to a Competent Authority (Section 4(1)), however, this term remains vague even in the revised Act. Although Sections 3(a-c) and 4(3) provide a list of individuals who may serve as Competent Authorities, it suggests categories such as a “senior person of an institution vested with powers to investigate such a wrongdoing.” This may leave whistleblowers uncertain about whether they are making a disclosure that the Competent Authority will determine is proper and will receive the protection benefits laid out in the Act.

The issue of who qualifies as a “Competent Authority” raises questions over what qualities and, by implication, professional credentials, are deemed sufficient to declare which authority has the requisite knowledge, skill and experience to investigate a particular disclosure. Additionally, referring disclosures from one authority to the intended “competent authority” may taint the quality of the evidentiary material. There is also the possibility that the identity of the whistleblower and that of intended witnesses may become exposed to the intended targets of any potential investigation, thereby compromising the actual investigation and an effective sanction. It may also expose such identified whistleblowers to further risk of retaliatory action, despite the guarantees listed in Part III under “Protection of Whistleblowers”. The cross-references to the appropriate Competent Authority could exponentially increase the risk of exposure to harm and thereby render meaningless the protections enumerated in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.

Nonetheless, once a Competent Authority receives the disclosure, they are required to provide the whistleblower with a written acknowledgement of receipt of the disclosure (Section 8(1)). Section 8(2) states that if the Competent Authority is not legally authorised to investigate the allegation, they should immediately refer the matter to an institution that is authorised to investigate. If the Competent Authority fails to take action as a result of a whistleblower’s complaint and failure to report the complaint leads to a loss to a public institution, it is an offence under Section 16(2) of the Act. This formulation is not ideal since it excludes a variety of other harms that can result from a Competent Authority’s failure to act, such as private sector embezzlement and environmental damage. However, it still creates a positive onus on the recipient of a disclosure to act out of fear of reprisal. An improvement on the Act would be to create a positive duty for whoever receives a whistleblower complaint to follow up, no matter what, instead of linking criminal sanctions to specific types of consequences.

Tanzania permits whistleblowers to go public with their disclosures as long as they have also followed the provisions of Section 4 (Section 5(2)), presumably meaning they can go public as long as they have made a good faith disclosure to a Competent Authority. However, knowing when to go public can be a challenge due to the limitations to disclosures included in Section 6 of the Act (discussed further under “Weaknesses of the Laws”).

Section 4(a) to (e) sets out public interest disclosures in detail. A more inclusive definition of whistleblower is given that all members of the society are included, literate and illiterate, able-bodied, and people with various physical challenges, like the visually impaired. The law makes provision for their disclosures to be reported and investigated, as set out in Section 7 of the Tanzanian Act. This is a progressive approach in terms of broadening the scope of people who, because of their condition, may bear witness to conduct which otherwise would have remained undetected. In this particular aspect, the law is to be lauded for an innovative approach to broadening the protections offered to whistleblowers.

However, public disclosures of wrongdoing spoil the protections offered to whistleblowers because they expose their identity and present an opportunity to alleged perpetrators to attack and tamper with the quality of the alleged evidence to be used in the investigation. Some experts find public disclosures to be more harmful because they violate the audi-alterem partem rule, meaning the evidence is judged not on legal standards but in the court of public opinion, often influenced by the resources at the disposal of the competing interests.

One of the most significant strengths of the Act is its emphasis on the importance of protecting the confidentiality of whistleblowers and of their disclosures. This was was further emphasised and clarified in the 2022 revisions, which explicitly state in Section 4(4) that a person who receives a disclosure according to the Act must keep both the disclosure itself and the whistleblower confidential at all times, and in the 2023 Regulations, which state that when a Competent Authority believes an applicant deserves the protection they requested, they will enter into a protection agreement with the applicant within seven days (Section 6).

If a whistleblower is granted protection, there are several measures the Competent Authority may employ, which are included in a non-comprehensive list in Section 12 of the Regulations. The measures include physical protection of a person, their residence, and their property; concealment of the identity of a person and ownership of any of their property; provision of a weapon for self-defence; relocation; provision of immunity from prosecution for an offence for which a person renders information or testifies; and providing protections to conceal the whistleblowers identity while giving testimony, including using voice and face distortion techniques or having them speak from behind a screen. The ability to conceal the identity of the whistleblower or witness under circumstances where other protection measures are considered insufficient is a major strength in Tanzania’s whistleblower laws.

The Act also allows for the Competent Authority to reward a witness or whistleblower who voluntarily provided original information that led to the successful enforcement of an administrative or judicial action (Section 21 of the Regulations). The Authority can also compensate a whistleblower who has suffered detrimental action, such as unlawful termination, demotion, or any other form of discrimination, after they expose wrongdoing (Section 22). However, for disclosures to be relevant and impact a progressive consciousness, the compensation of whistleblowers should be diligently controlled and vetted for the truthfulness of the disclosure, to guard against persons making disclosures in the hopes of being compensated.

Finally, in Section 14, the revised Act makes void any provision in an employment contract that seeks to prevent an employee from making a disclosure, has the effect of discouraging employees from making disclosures, precludes employees from making a complaint due to concern about retaliation or victimisation, or prevents employees from bringing an action in court to claim relief for retaliation or victimisation.

Weaknesses of the Laws

Section 18 (b) of the Constitution of Tanzania states that “every person has a right to seek, receive, or disseminate information regardless of national boundaries”. This sentiment does not translate into reality when juxtaposed against the provisions of Section 6 of the Whistleblower and Witness Protection Act. The Section forbids the rendering of assistance or the furnishing of information likely to prejudice the sovereignty and integrity of the Republic of Tanzania, the security of the state, friendly relations with a foreign state, public order, decency or morality or lead to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to commit an offence, or disclosure of the proceedings of the Cabinet.

These provisions hamstring the law and effectively limit the scope of disclosures a whistleblower can make. It therefore means that certain classes of offences may never come to light and that the right to publicly disclose wrongdoing becomes further meaningless. Despite the laudable features contained in the Act, it falls short of truly offering an avenue for whistleblowers to expose corruption and fraudulent conduct.

The Act equally suffers from a multitude of weaknesses. Primary among these is the lack of full implementation of the Act, particularly when it comes to the creation of better avenues for reporting. While the revised Act allows for disclosures using a variety of avenues, including through online means, simple online platforms for whistleblowing, particularly outside of institutions themselves, are still lacking.

The Act also contains several provisions that could have a chilling effect on the willingness of whistleblowers to come forward. Section 6 lists exceptions to the whistleblower protections laid out elsewhere in the Act. It states that disclosures are not permitted if they would be likely to cause prejudice to the sovereignty and integrity of Tanzania, the security of the State, friendly relations with a foreign State, public order, decency or morality, or about contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to commit an offence and the disclosure of proceedings of the Cabinet. This list is so broad and vague that it may undermine the efficacy of the entire whistleblower framework. Even if a whistleblower’s information is strong enough to stand up in court, the uncertainty about whether or not they will receive proper protection could seriously dissuade whistleblowers from coming forward.

Section 17 creates even more uncertainty since it makes it an offence for individuals to knowingly disclose false information related to a wrongdoing. While it is reasonable to want to discourage false disclosures, the mere presence of potential criminal liability for those who come forward could chill the willingness of individuals to become whistleblowers, even when they have information they know or suspect to be true that would stand up in court.

Section 28 of the Regulations makes it a crime for a protected person to knowingly fail to provide true, accurate, or complete information or evidence to a case that is the subject matter of the protection agreement; to fail to return the new identification or other related documents without good cause; or to refrain from activities that could impede the protection measures. If convicted, the person will face a fine between 500,000 and 1 million Tanzanian shillings (around 190 to 385 USD) and/or imprisonment for six to twelve months.

For those whistleblowers who wish to come forward despite the uncertainties created by Sections 6, 17 and 28, they may face the challenges presented by the Act’s vague procedures surrounding proper disclosures. In particular, the Act requires whistleblowers to have a strong understanding of the powers of senior figures within their organisation before disclosing information. This is because, according to Section 3, the Competent Authority a whistleblower approaches should be a head or senior person of the institution who is vested with the powers to investigate the matter.

However, the absence of regular public awareness campaigns around the procedures to follow continues to serve as an inherent impediment to fostering a culture of whistleblowing. It is an oversight by the legislature in Tanzania which can easily be remedied by the removal of possible criminal sanctions and civil actions for reporting inaccurate disclosures. Mala fide disclosures without merit can be damaging to the targets of investigation, but those types of practices can be culled through the penal code, and do not necessarily have to involve sanctions incorporating a term of direct imprisonment.

The Act also creates a risk of inadvertent wrongdoing for whistleblowers due to its Section 17(2) provision, making it illegal for a whistleblower to share any information relating to a disclosure with a person to whom the disclosure relates. Frequently, whistleblowers do not understand the full scope of the misconduct they are reporting, meaning they may accidentally disclose to someone involved in the wrongdoing they are reporting without realising it, putting themselves in legal danger and removing the possibility of gaining the protections promised by the Act. Not only does this provision put potential whistleblowers in a very difficult position, it also effectively rules out the public disclosures that the Act technically permits, given that, by going public, the information will be at least, hypothetically, available to the target of the disclosure.

Unlike many countries, Tanzania does not criminalise retaliation against whistleblowers. While the Competent Authority, which receives a disclosure, is responsible for providing protection to the whistleblower (or issuing appropriate directions to institutions that are capable of providing appropriate protection), it is unclear how this protection and delegation of power may work. When it comes to forms of retaliation that may warrant a whistleblower getting protection, the Act does not include protection against civil or criminal liability, nor does it include any more general protection against adverse consequences.

There also has to be a further buy-in from the Tanzanian government by advocating for transparency and educating the public about the benefits of eradicating corruption. The social stigma attached to whistleblowing must also be exorcised, and the benefits of good governance expounded, and the role that whistleblowers play in bringing about good governance must be highlighted.

The corruption of Tanzania’s judicial system creates a further concern for potential whistleblowers. With so many opportunities for whistleblowers to violate the Act, there is a reasonable likelihood that a whistleblower will end up in court as a result of their good-faith efforts to disclose wrongdoing. Between companies reporting that irregular payments are frequently exchanged for favourable court decisions and the ongoing hijacking of the judiciary by political elites, whistleblowers are put in a precarious position if they do face the courts.

Whistleblower Cases

Whistleblower cases in Tanzania often go underreported. Despite this, some cases involving whistleblowers still manage to break through.

In the mid-2010s, Tanzania experienced one of its biggest corruption scandals. The state-run electricity company, TANESCO, was found to have massive corruption and embezzlement schemes involving senior officials. Whistleblowers played an essential role in the unravelling of the schemes, leading to top TANESCO officials being charged with corruption following investigations into the company.

Tanzania’s extraction and mining industries have also seen multiple incidents of corruption that were exposed, at least in part, thanks to whistleblowers. In 2017, whistleblowers exposed a tax avoidance scheme involving mining companies that led to an official government review of the companies’ operations. As a result, three of gold miner Acacia Mining’s local subsidiaries, an employee, and a former staffer were all charged with money laundering and tax evasion.

Although not making local newspaper headlines, the UNDP reports that Tanzania is also seeing an increase in whistleblowing thanks to the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Bureau (PCCB), whose online whistleblowing platform is leading to the PCCB’s successful investigation of corruption throughout the country. In the Kagera region alone, between January and June 2023, PCCB’s digital whistleblowing platforms received 120 complaints. 43 of these were related to corruption, leading to investigations of 36 cases that uncovered losses of 30 million (about 11578 USD) Tanzanian shillings from services under the government’s cost-sharing scheme.

Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Media

Whether in the legislation or tangible happenings, Tanzania has engendered a bad relationship with the media, notably by suppressing the freedom of expression. In Reporters Without Borders’ (RSF) 2024 World Press Freedom Index, Tanzania ranked 97th out of 180 countries. While this is an improvement from the country’s 2023 ranking of 143rd, it still puts Tanzania behind many other countries in the region. There are multiple reasons for Tanzania’s lack of significant media freedom. In terms of legal limitations, the restrictive Media Services Act of 2016 creates a particularly restrictive media landscape.

The Media Services Act places arduous regulations and registration/accreditation costs on journalists and media outlets. It gives the Information Minister arbitrary powers to punish both journalists and media houses. It also gives the government a direct say on matters it determines to be of national importance. The government frequently uses this latter section to punish media houses as it sees fit.

In 2023, after multiple delays, amendments to the Media Services Act were finally passed. These amendments were undoubtedly a step in the right direction, but critics warn that they were insufficient to ensure journalists can work without fear or encumbrance. The most significant changes were the removal of absolute privilege in defamation cases and switching them from criminal cases to civil cases; the addition of the ability for private media to access advertisements from government institutions and local government authorities; and the reduction (though not the abolishment) of some monetary and prison penalties for publishing information the government disfavours.

There are still serious penalties in place against journalists deemed to have published prohibited information, produced false information, threatened the security of Tanzania, and more. The result is that the government still has significant legal leeway to punish any media houses or journalists whose work it disapproves of. Often, media players operate in a constricted market environment, jostling for limited resources and going against media entities pushing an official agenda which seeks to minimise the effects of corruption.

The Cybercrimes Act of 2015, The Statistics Act of 2015, and The Access to Information Act of 2016 all also serve to regulate and control the freedom of the media in Tanzania. The Cybercrimes Act in particular has been actively used to punish efforts to support whistleblowers. In 2017, the co-founders of JamiiForums, a whistleblower reporting website, were charged with obstructing justice because they refused to reveal the identities of users who submitted information about suspected corrupt officials. The founders argued that disclosing the identities would have run counter to confidentiality and digital privacy laws, as well as to the Constitution of Tanzania itself, which guarantees the right to privacy in Article 18. Three years later, one of the founders was convicted on a charge of “obstruction of a police investigation.”

Even after the amendments to the Media Services Act, Tanzania has a minimal independent press. Many media outlets are either owned or influenced by politicians, undermining editorial independence and resulting in biased coverage. Privately owned newspapers frequently get 40-80% of their income from state advertising. If the papers stray from the government line, those resources disappear.

The few media outlets that are truly independent face frequent suspensions or publication bans. For example, in 2021, Raia Mwema, one of Tanzania’s most popular independent newspapers, was suspended for 30 days because it identified a man who had killed an embassy security guard and three police officers as a member of Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM), Tanzania’s ruling party since the country gained independence in 1962.

A 30-day suspension is a short penalty by Tanzania’s standards. In 2022, the country lifted bans on four newspapers that had been barred from publishing since 2016 and 2017 as retaliation for their exposing alleged corruption and human rights violations. They were punished under the Media Services Act and the now-repealed Newspaper Act.

The lifting of this ban was not a sign of greater media and speech freedom to come. In 2024, The Citizen, one of Tanzania’s major English-language newspapers, had its online media licenses suspended in response to a minute-long clip it published on social media. The clip highlighted Tanzania’s increasing cases of disappearances and abductions. In explaining the suspension, the media regulator said the content threatened and was likely to affect and harm Tanzania’s national unity and social peace.

Safety risks are also a serious concern for journalists as well as for potential whistleblowers. Media outlets and journalists that criticise the authorities risk suspensions, arrest, and even abduction. This very real danger was demonstrated in 2017 when Azory Gwanda, a journalist investigating the murders of local officials, mysteriously disappeared. The Tanzanian government has not conducted any credible investigation into Gwanda’s fate and has even dismissed the case offhand on occasion. In 2021, a cartoonist was jailed for a satirical cartoon about Tanzania’s president. Under these circumstances, it is clear that journalists in Tanzania do not have the ability to publish freely.

Compliance with International Standards

Tanzania is compliant with international standards as far as whistleblower protections. While there is still room for improvement, their laws are on the right track to achieving greater compliance, particularly with the 2022 update to the Whistleblower and Witness Protection Act and the accompanying 2023 Regulations.

Knowledge, Support, and Action Centres

The Prevention and Combating of Corruption Bureau (PCCB)

The PCCB is Tanzania’s primary institution responsible for addressing corruption-related complaints. It works to strengthen the country’s anti-corruption infrastructures, bringing together stakeholders to develop and recommend strategies to reduce corruption. Whistleblowers can report corruption or related misconduct to the PCCB.

  • Address: 1 Mtaa wa TAKUKURU, S. L. P 1291, 41101 DODOMA
  • Tel: (026) 2323316
  • Fax: (026) 2323332
  • Website: https://www.pccb.go.tz/
  • Online form: https://www.pccb.go.tz/emalalamiko/public/

Financial Intelligence Unit

The Ministry of Finance’s Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) was established under section 4 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, Cap. 423 of 2006 (AMLA) to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism. It is an Extra-Ministerial Department under the Ministry of Finance. Its mission is to ensure a stable financial system through detecting and preventing money laundering and associated crimes, terrorist financing, and proliferation financing in collaboration with local and international stakeholders.

blow the whistle

PPLAAF

Blow the whistle

Newsletter

Stay informed of the latest actions of PPLAAF by subscribing to the newsletter.

Nom*
RGPD*
*

I blow the whistle

Legal Notice - Copyright 2024

Legal Notice

Copyright 2022