The Southern African Development Community (SADC) Electoral Observation Mission (SEOM) has issued a damning preliminary assessment of Tanzania’s 2025 general elections, describing the process as having failed to meet the fundamental requirements of democratic integrity as outlined in the Revised SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections. Delivered in Dar es Salaam by Right Honourable Richard Msowoya, the former Speaker of Malawi’s Parliament and head of the SEOM, the report offers a deeply troubling portrait of electoral administration, political freedom, and civic participation in one of East Africa’s most geopolitically significant states.
While the Mission acknowledged the overall peaceful environment across much of the country on polling days—28 October for security forces in Zanzibar and 29 October for the general population—the statement highlighted that this outward calm was misleading. Beneath the surface, the political landscape was characterised by intimidation, arbitrary arrests, unequal media access, and serious legal constraints on both opposition candidates and electoral justice mechanisms. Notably, the detention of leading opposition figure Tundu Lissu on treason charges and the disqualification of ACT-Wazalendo’s Luhaga Mpina were cited as symptomatic of a broader environment designed to exclude dissenting voices and suppress multiparty competition.
The report reveals that observers encountered significant obstacles in performing their duties. Despite carrying official accreditation, several SADC observers were denied access to electoral officials, subjected to interrogation by security forces, and even compelled to delete photographs from their devices. In Tanga Town, some observers had their passports confiscated and were intimidated by police. Such treatment, according to SEOM, contravenes the very guidelines member states are expected to uphold in facilitating international observation missions.
Although Tanzania’s Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Zanzibar Electoral Commission (ZEC) were generally viewed by stakeholders as operationally prepared, questions about their structural independence persisted. The fact that Commission members are appointed by the President—himself a candidate and leader of the ruling party—was flagged as a potential conflict of interest. Critics argue this creates a power imbalance that skews the playing field and renders the institutions susceptible to political influence.
Another constitutional concern stems from Article 41(7), which explicitly prohibits any legal challenge to the outcome of a presidential election. SEOM described this provision as antithetical to the principles of electoral justice and accountability. Similarly, Article 74(12), which bars courts from reviewing actions of the Electoral Commission, drew criticism for undermining transparency and removing a key layer of public oversight. The inability of independent candidates to contest elections without party affiliation was also seen as exclusionary, further eroding democratic choice.
The issue of media access was another area of concern. While the INEC and ZEC facilitated state television coverage for various parties, the report notes that such platforms heavily favoured the ruling party. Privately owned media, meanwhile, reportedly engaged in self-censorship due to fears of losing operating licences. Social media platforms were intermittently blocked, impeding both political dialogue and observers’ ability to gather data, especially after a significant internet shutdown on Election Day.
SEOM reported a notably low voter turnout across most observed regions, with some polling centres entirely empty. While the reasons are multifaceted, stakeholders cited fear, distrust in the process, and structural exclusion as major deterrents. This subdued participation, coupled with reports of suspiciously stacked ballots and inconsistencies in ballot sealing, has raised alarm bells regarding the integrity of the vote.
Despite these challenges, some elements of electoral administration were positively noted. Observers acknowledged that the majority of polling stations were well-prepared, opened on time, and were accessible to persons with disabilities. However, these logistical successes were overshadowed by broader concerns about the credibility of the process as a whole.
SEOM’s statement concluded that the elections did not meet the expectations of openness, transparency, and inclusiveness required by the SADC democratic framework. The Mission stopped short of issuing a final judgment, pending post-election observation and a full report to be released within 30 days. Nevertheless, the preliminary findings offer a stark warning: democratic institutions in Tanzania are under significant strain, and the country’s commitment to fair and inclusive governance remains in question.
While the Mission urged citizens to remain peaceful and channel grievances through legal mechanisms, it also called upon Tanzanian authorities to initiate inclusive constitutional reforms, review electoral laws, and uphold the rights of all citizens—particularly women, youth, and persons with disabilities—to fully participate in political life. It further pressed for enhanced media freedom and the unimpeded operation of election observers, both domestic and international.
