Tito Elia Magoti & Kumbusho Dawson Kagine v. Minister for Communications and Information Technology & Others
High Court of Tanzania, Dar es Salaam Sub‑Registry
Misc. Cause No. 2378 of 2026
Before Hon. Judges Salma Maghimbi, Elizabeth Mkwizu and Elinaza Luvanda
Two Tanzanian human rights defenders, Tito Elia Magoti and Kumbusho Dawson Kagine, have filed a constitutional petition challenging the government’s ongoing restriction of access to X (formerly Twitter) in Tanzania. The case, now before the High Court of Tanzania (Dar es Salaam Sub-Registry), challenges the legality and constitutionality of the nationwide restriction on access to X, which has been in effect since May 2025.
The applicants argue that the blocking of X violates fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, including the right to freedom of expression, access to information, and participation in public affairs. They further contend that the shutdown has harmed journalists, activists, businesses, content creators, students, emergency‑response systems, and the broader public.
The case is supported by the Southern Africa Litigation Centre.
Background
In May 2025, access to X (formerly Twitter) was blocked across Tanzania. The restriction followed a directive issued by the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority (TCRA), allegedly due to “prohibited content” on the platform and X’s purported non-compliance with local content‑filtering laws. Independent data from the Open Observatory of Network Interference (OONI) later confirmed that internet service providers were technically blocking the platform.
Despite the nationwide impact, the government provided no prior public notice, no formal statement outlining the legal basis, and no clear justification for the breadth and duration of the restriction.
On 30 January 2026, two Tanzanian human rights defenders, Tito Magoti and Kumbusho Kagine, filed a constitutional petition challenging the restriction. They argue that the government’s actions violate fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, including freedom of expression, access to information, and the right to participate in public affairs.
The government opposes the petition and maintains that the restriction was lawful, necessary for protecting morality, public health and public safety, and proportionate to the aim they intend to achieve.
Legal Issues
The case raises critical constitutional and public‑interest questions, including:
- Whether the blanket shutdown of X violates Article 18 of the Constitution, which protects the right to seek, receive, and disseminate information.
- Whether the shutdown infringes Article 20(1), which protects the right to peaceful assembly, association, and cooperation.
- Whether the government complied with Tanzanian law, including requirements of legality, necessity, and proportionality, when limiting rights.
- Whether the state acted ultra vires, by restricting access without a clear statutory mandate or transparent due process.
- Whether alternative platforms can substitute for the specific civic, journalistic, and economic functions of X, including real-time communication, public debate, and access to global markets.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners argue that:
- The shutdown is unconstitutional, violates Articles 18, 20(1), 26(1), and 29, and undermines democratic participation.
- The restriction was not grounded in any valid law, nor preceded by public consultation or a reasoned decision.
- X plays a unique and irreplaceable role in civic discourse, journalism, political participation, emergency alerts, online business, and international engagement.
- The broad, indefinite block is disproportionate, punishing millions of users instead of addressing allegedly problematic content.
- The government’s actions have caused measurable social, economic, and political harm, from silencing activists and journalists to disrupting businesses, content creators, educators, and humanitarian communication.
- The state failed to demonstrate necessity, relying instead on vague claims of “public morality” without evidence that harmful content could not be addressed through less intrusive means.
Respondents’ Arguments
The government, through the Minister, TCRA, and Attorney General, argues that:
- Rights under the Constitution are not absolute and may be limited to protect public safety, public health, and public morality.
- X failed to comply with Tanzanian regulations requiring platforms to filter and remove prohibited content, including pornography.
- Restricting X was a “last resort” after the platform allegedly refused to implement required safeguards.
- The public retains full access to information through other platforms (Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp) and traditional media, meaning no constitutional rights were violated.
- Content creators, journalists, civil society, and businesses can operate normally via alternative channels and thus have not suffered rights infringements.
- The shutdown is lawful, proportionate, and compliant with national law and Tanzania’s international obligations.
Why This Case Matters
This case is a landmark test of digital rights, constitutional freedoms, and state power over online platforms in Tanzania. Its outcome will determine:
- Whether the government may shut down global communication platforms without a transparent legal justification.
- Whether the right to access digital spaces—and to participate in global conversations—is protected under the Tanzanian Constitution.
- How far states may go in imposing content‑regulation obligations on international tech companies.
- The future of civic engagement, journalism, and digital innovation in Tanzania and the broader region.
The case also has implications for regional standards on internet shutdowns, aligning with broader debates on digital authoritarianism, online freedom, and the role of courts in protecting public participation in the digital era.
Case Status
As of March 2026, the court has received the government’s joint counter‑affidavit and reply, and order hearing by way of written submission, and the matter will come for necessary orders on 10th April 2026.
Petition filed by applicants: Petition Filed