The AG office, in the matter of the High Court reinstated Advocate Fatma Karume, risks tarnishing its reputation as a zealous defender of human rights. The AG is also open to the criticism that his office is a political cudgel to pummel legal professionals who cross path with its employer, the executive.
A careful assessment of the allowed grounds for extension of time before a single justice of the Appeals Court, Hon Justice Lillian Mashaka, signals how the AG intended to frame his controversial appeal. Those grounds are sufficient to assay whether the AG office really has an arguable appeal or is only deploying “delay tactics” against the High Court Advocate, Fatma Karume, from fully enjoying the fruits of her reinstatement to the Bar.
This article investigates the legal and political ramifications of the AG’s overzealousness of his pending appeal before the Appeals Court.
Allegations of Illegality in the lower court ruling, the High Court, prompted the Appeal!
This ground of allegations of illegality is widely accepted as permitting the court of law to grant the application of extension of time. On equal measure, the court cannot assess the merits of the grounds brought under the banner of the allegations of illegality. Henceforth, there was no way I can fault the Appeals Court for granting the AG the permission to appeal.
However, on legal and political orbits are where the examination of those grounds make plenty of sense. One shouldn’t forget, the AG office is a public institution accountable to the public for how it is conducting itself. This controversial case is one of them.The public has the right to quizz whether the AG is advancing public interest or is merely pursuing political vendetta on behalf of its employer: the executive.
Of utmost, the public has an inherent right to know whether the AG really has a legal case to begin with or he is only delaying justice for the purposes of hazing the High Court Advocate, Fatma Karume. Is there public interest in this matter or not? This is a question this article will attempt to answer.
Grounds of Appeal drawn from questions of illegality of the decision of the High Court!
The Tanzanian government was granted leave to appeal against Fatma Karume’s reinstatement to legal practice by the Court of Appeal on April 15, 2025. The grounds for granting the extension of time to file the appeal, as outlined in the ruling by Justice Lilian Mashaka, include the following key points:
- Procedural Complexity and Legal Requirements.
The Appeals court acknowledged that amendments to procedural rules required the government to first obtain leave before appealing, which contributed to delays. Justice Mashaka emphasized that the obligation to seek leave was complicated by recent procedural changes, justifying the extension under Rules 10, 4(2)(b)(c), and 48(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009.
- Alleged Legal Misinterpretation by the High Court.
The government argued that the High Court’s 2021 decision to reinstate Karume misinterpreted key legal provisions, including Section 13(1)(a)-(c) of the Advocates Act and Regulation 4(1)(a) and (e) of the Advocates (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Regulations.
- Timeliness of the Application.
The government filed its application on April 3, 2024, nine days after its earlier request was dismissed. The court deemed this prompt action sufficient to justify an extension, stating that the delay was not unreasonable given the procedural hurdles.
- Public Interest and Legality.
Justice Mashaka highlighted that the case raised significant questions about the legality of disciplinary processes for legal professionals. She referenced the principle that disputes involving legality constitute sufficient grounds for extending time, especially where procedural fairness and institutional accountability are at stake.
- Procedural Irregularities in Prior Proceedings.
The government contended that the Advocates’ Committee’s initial decision to disbar Karume in 2020 was improperly overturned by the High Court. Specifically, they argued that the High Court erred in ruling that the complaint against Karume should have been filed by the Registrar of the High Court, not the Attorney General. This procedural dispute was deemed a critical issue for appellate review.
The Court of Appeal’s decision allows the government 60 days (from April 15, 2025) to formalize its appeal, which will now proceed to a full hearing. This case underscores ongoing tensions between judicial independence and executive influence in Tanzania, particularly given Karume’s history of challenging government actions.
The gist of the High Court ruling that overturned the Fatma Karume disbarment.
The High Court of Tanzania overturned Fatma Karume’s disbarment in 2021, primarily on grounds of procedural irregularities and violations of due process. The decision centered on the flawed disciplinary process initiated against her, which stemmed from her constitutional challenge to the appointment of Tanzania’s Attorney General in 2019. Below are the key elements of the ruling:
- Improper Initiation of the Complaint.
The High Court found that the complaint against Karume was improperly lodged by the Attorney General instead of the Registrar of the High Court, as required by law. The Advocates’ Disciplinary Committee (ADC) lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because the complaint was not filed through the correct procedural channel. This procedural misstep rendered the entire disciplinary process invalid.
- Violation of Fair Hearing Rights.
The court emphasized that Karume was suspended indefinitely in 2019 without prior notice or an opportunity to defend herself, violating her right to a fair hearing under Tanzanian and international law. The ADC further compounded this injustice by delaying her case for over a year, denying her a timely resolution. The High Court ruled that these actions breached constitutional guarantees (Articles 13 and 21) and international standards, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
- Overstepping Judicial Authority.
The ADC’s decision to permanently disbar Karume in 2020 was deemed an overreach. The High Court noted that the ADC acted beyond its authority by adjudicating a complaint improperly initiated, and its harsh punishment (lifetime disbarment) was unprecedented and disproportionate. The court also criticized the High Court’s initial suspension order in 2019, which bypassed due process despite acknowledging the procedural flaws.
- Misinterpretation of Professional Conduct.
The charges against Karume, which centered on her “disrespectful language” in legal submissions, were deemed inconsistent with international standards protecting lawyers’ freedom of expression in court proceedings. The High Court clarified that her arguments, while critical, were made in good faith as part of her professional duties. This aligned with Principle 20 of the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, which grants immunity for statements made in good faith during legal proceedings.
- Impact on Judicial Independence.
The ruling implicitly addressed broader concerns about political interference in the judiciary. The High Court’s decision to reinstate Karume underscored the need for procedural fairness and adherence to the rule of law, countering perceptions that her disbarment was a retaliatory measure for her political activism against government overreach. This reinforced the principle that disciplinary processes must not be weaponized to suppress legal dissent.
In summary, the High Court’s decision highlighted systemic failures in Tanzania’s disciplinary mechanisms for lawyers, emphasizing that Karume’s disbarment was procedurally unlawful, legally flawed and politically tainted. The ruling restored her right to practice law and set a precedent for safeguarding judicial independence and due process. These provisions relate to professional misconduct and disciplinary procedures. The Appellate Court found this argument substantive enough to warrant a full hearing.
Legal pitfalls with the AG Appeal.
The AG is aggrieved by the interpretation of the High Court of these two pieces of regulations: Regulation 4(1)(a) and (e) of the Advocates (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Regulations, that had empowered the ADC to receive, hear and determine applications against advocate’s allegations of misconduct. Here is a reproduction of the said regulations.
“PART II PROCEEDINGS AGAINST AN ADVOCATE
4.-(1) A person who is aggrieved by the conduct of an advocate or believes that an advocate has-
(a) committed a professional misconduct;….……. (e) committed any act prohibited by the Act, or any other law regulating the professional conduct of an advocate, may, in writing, apply to the Committee for removal of the advocate’s name from the Roll or that advocate be required to answer the allegation against him.” End of quotation.
What the AG will never be able to overturn is how can the ADC receive a complaint from a ruling of the High Court that had already determined Advocate Fatma Karume was guilty as charged? In simplistic terms, the AG will be appealing against “DOUBLE JEOPARDY” committed against Advocate Fatma Karume!
No court of law worth its name will entertain anybody to be punished twice. Advocate Karume was illegally punished by the High Court Judge Feleshi when he ordered her permanent suspension from practicing law. Judge Feleshi didn’t have powers to suspend her, and he acknowledged the inappropriateness of his actions in his infamous ruling yet proceeded to exercise powers which he didn’t have. Through this judicial overreach, the rights to a fair hearing of High Court Advocate Fatma Karume were irretrievably taken away.
Secondly, Judge Feleshi never gave Advocate Fatma Karume any opportunity to defend herself violating the cardinal principles of natural justice. Whatever purported hearing before the ADC was a kangaroo court, and the High Court correctly ruled it as such.
Thirdly, there was a compelling issue of the violations of the doctrine of proportionality. There was absolutely no ground to impose the maximum penalty of lifetime disbarment. There was neither precedent nor any law to justify it. Here is one case from International Sports Arbitration that could shed more light on the “doctrine of proportionality”.
One notable sports arbitration case that addressed the principle of limiting sanctions to a maximum of three years is the CAS award involving Russian racewalker, Andrey Lusnikov (2020). Here’s the gist of the case and its reasoning:
Case Background.
Andrey Lusnikov, a Russian racewalker, was initially handed an eight-year ban by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) in 2018 for a second anti-doping rule violation (ADRV). Lusnikov appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the sanction was disproportionate and violated procedural fairness.
Key Grounds for Limiting the Ban to Three Years.
- Procedural Delays and Fairness.
The CAS panel found that RUSADA and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) caused significant delays in prosecuting the case. These delays violated Lusnikov’s right to a timely resolution under the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) and general principles of fairness. The panel ruled that excessive delays could not justify an eight-year ban.
- Proportionality of Sanctions.
The CAS emphasized that sanctions must be proportionate to the offense. While the WADC allows for longer bans for repeat offenders, the panel held that an eight-year ban effectively ended Lusnikov’s career and was “excessive” given the circumstances. The three-year limit balanced deterrence with the athlete’s right to a professional future.
- Mitigating Factors.
The panel considered Lusnikov’s cooperation and the absence of evidence that his second violation was intentional. This aligned with Article 10.9.1 of the WADC, which permits reduced sanctions for mitigating factors.
- Human Rights Considerations.
The decision implicitly referenced the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), particularly the right to work and proportionality in punishment. CAS panels increasingly weigh human rights principles in sanctioning decisions.
Outcome.
The CAS reduced Lusnikov’s ban from eight years to three years, setting a precedent that procedural delays and disproportionality could cap sanctions even for repeat offenders. This case underscores the growing trend in sports arbitration to balance strict anti-doping enforcement with fairness and athletes’ rights.
Broader Implications.
Legal Principle:
The case reinforces that anti-doping sanctions must respect procedural fairness, proportionality, and human rights, even for repeat violations.
Impact on WADC:
It influenced subsequent discussions about revising sanction guidelines, particularly for non-intentional repeat offenses.
This ruling is frequently cited in disputes where athletes challenge excessively punitive sanctions, emphasizing that sports governing bodies must justify the severity of penalties within a framework of justice.
Political landmines with the AG Appeal.
The Tanzanian Attorney General’s appeal against the High Court ruling that reinstated lawyer Fatma Karume’s right to practice law carries significant political risks, particularly in the context of Tanzania’s evolving political landscape under President Samia Suluhu Hassan. Below is an analysis of these risks, supported by seminal insights chronicled in my past works.
- Erosion of Judicial Independence and Rule of Law.
The appeal challenges a High Court decision that found procedural irregularities in Karume’s disbarment, disproportionality of the sanction, including the improper filing of complaints by the Attorney General instead of the Registrar of the High Court. Since the appeal is widely perceived as politically motivated, it risks undermining public trust in judicial independence.
This aligns with broader concerns about Tanzania’s judiciary being weaponized to suppress dissent, as seen in cases like the baseless treason charges and incarceration of the putative CHADEMA presidential candidate Tundu Lissu, the disqualification of opposition party CHADEMA from 2025 elections – under the tutelage of Appeals Court Justice doubling as the election commission boss, Jacobs Mwambegele. The ICJ has already criticized Karume’s disbarment as violating international standards for fair hearings and lawyer protections.
- Backlash from Civil Society and Legal Fraternity.
Karume’s case has galvanized civil society and legal professionals. The Tanganyika Law Society (TLS) condemned her suspension as a threat to lawyers advocating for public interest . A continued legal battle could deepen mistrust between the government and civil society, emboldening opposition groups like CHADEMA, which has framed its electoral disqualification as unconstitutional . Lawyers and activists may view the appeal as part of a broader crackdown on dissent, further polarizing Tanzania’s political climate.
- International Reputational Damage.
The ICJ and international human rights bodies have condemned Karume’s mistreatment, linking it to Tanzania’s failure to uphold regional and global human rights obligations . If the appeal proceeds, it risks amplifying scrutiny of Tanzania’s democratic backsliding, particularly amid reports of abductions, political assassinations, treason charges against opposition leaders like Tundu Lissu, and electoral restrictions . Freedom House’s recent downgrade of Tanzania to “Not Free” underscores these concerns, which could strain diplomatic relations and deter foreign investment.
- Precedent for Silencing Critics.
A successful appeal could set a dangerous precedent for using disciplinary mechanisms to silence lawyers and opposition figures. Karume was disbarred for remarks made in a constitutional challenge against the Attorney General’s appointment, reflecting a pattern of targeting legal professionals who challenge state actions. Similar tactics are evident in the treason charges against CHADEMA leader Tundu Lissu, accused of advocating electoral reforms . This risks creating a chilling effect, deterring lawyers from taking on politically sensitive cases.
- Undermining President Samia’s Reform Agenda.
President Samia initially positioned herself as a reformer, reversing some authoritarian policies of her predecessor, John Magufuli. However, her government’s actions—including the appeal against Karume, CHADEMA’s disqualification and Tundu Lissu’s political persecution —have fueled perceptions of political regression . Legal experts argue that the electoral code of conduct used to bar CHADEMA lacks constitutional grounding, mirroring criticisms of the Attorney General’s mishandling of Karume’s case. This maladministration could weaken domestic and international confidence in Samia’s commitment to democratic reforms.
- Escalating Political Polarization.
The appeal intensifies existing tensions between the ruling party (CCM) and opposition. CHADEMA’s “No Reforms, No Elections” stance and Karume’s defiance highlight growing resistance to perceived authoritarianism . If the government continues to use legal and electoral systems to marginalize critics, it risks provoking civil unrest or boycotts, destabilizing Tanzania’s political environment ahead of the 2025 elections.
Conclusion.
The Attorney General’s appeal against Fatma Karume’s reinstatement intersects with broader political risks, including judicial overreach, civil society backlash, international condemnation, and the erosion of democratic norms. These dynamics threaten Tanzania’s stability and President Samia’s reformist image, particularly as the 2025 elections approach. The case exemplifies how legal mechanisms can be politicized to suppress dissent, a trend increasingly observed in Tanzania’s shrinking democratic space.
Moreover, his appeal lacks merits since it is hell-bent to upend legal practices, norms, precedents, logic and commonsense. Consequently, based on what I have propounded above my considered advice: the government should walk away from this polarizing appeal.
Let High Court Advocate Fatma Karume practice her legal profession in peace, that would quicken “making Tanzania great again.”
Read more about The Indefatigable Fatma Karume Is Now A Prisoner Of Conscience In Tanzania.
