Fatma Karume, a prominent Tanzanian lawyer and former president of the Tanganyika Law Society (TLS), was permanently disbarred from practicing law in mainland Tanzania in September 2020. The decision stemmed from a series of events tied to her professional conduct and legal challenges against the government. She is a formidable X personality with over 1.1 million followers. Her fanatical followers hang on her every word in search for wisdom, guidance, moral encouragement and fortitude.
Despite successfully having the High Court revoking her disbarment in 2021, the A.G has just secured an extension of time to lodge an appeal in the Court of Appeal in Tanzania challenging her reinstatement in the TLS bar! Her controversial disbarment showcased the palpable tensions between Tanzania government and the judiciary on one hand pitted against judicial activism on the other. This is her unique yet inspiring travails.
Fatma Karume Biography.
Fatma Karume (born June 15, 1969) is a famous Tanzanian lawyer, human rights advocate, and political activist known for her staunch defense of democracy, rule of law, and constitutional governance. Here’s an in-depth look at her life and career:
Early Life and Family Background.
Revolutionary Lineage:
Fatma is the daughter of Amani Abeid Karume, the sixth President of Zanzibar, and the granddaughter of Abeid Amani Karume, Zanzibar’s first post-independence president and a pivotal figure in the 1964 Zanzibar Revolution.
Political Legacy:
Growing up in a family deeply steeped in Tanzania’s political history, she inherited an unwavering commitment to social justice and governance reforms.
Education and Legal Training.
International Studies:
After completing secondary education, she studied law in Strasbourg, France, and earned a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) from the University of Sussex, UK, in 1992.
Advanced Degrees:
She later obtained a Master of Laws (LLM) from the London School of Economics in 1997 and qualified as a barrister in London.
Admission to the Bar:
In 1994, she became a licensed advocate in Tanzania, practicing in both mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar.
Legal Career and Leadership.
Founding Partner at IMMMA Advocates:
She co-founded the Dar es Salaam-based law firm IMMMA Advocates, specializing in tax law and representing major financial institutions.
President of the Tanganyika Law Society (TLS):
Elected in 2018, she became the first woman to lead TLS, advocating for judicial independence, lawyers’ rights, and democratic accountability.
Notable Cases:
Her career includes high-profile constitutional challenges, such as contesting the presidential appointment of Tanzania’s Attorney General in 2019.
Activism and Political Dissent.
Critic of Authoritarianism:
Fatma emerged as a vocal critic of President John Magufuli’s high-handed management style (2015–2021), chiding its erosion of democratic norms, press freedom, and LGBTQ+ rights.
Social Media Influence:
Known as “Shangazi wa Taifa” (Kiswahili for Aunt of the Nation), she gained many followers on Twitter now X for her bold commentary on governance and human rights. Now she has amassed a breathtaking over 1.1 million followers on X, a gratitude for her fierce commentary on human rights and the rule of law in Tanzania, and elsewhere.
Advocacy for the Marginalized Groups:
She publicly defended LGBTQ+ rights, opposing state crackdowns, and advocated for women’s empowerment in Tanzania’s male-dominated political landscape.
Disbarment and Legal Battles.
2020 Disbarment:
In September 2020, she was permanently barred from practicing law in mainland Tanzania after challenging the allegedly unconstitutional appointment of Attorney General professor Adelardus Kilangi.
Overturned by the High Court:
After 243 days, the court ruled her disbarment illegal in 2021, reinstating her license.
International Backlash:
Organizations like the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) condemned her suspension as politically motivated, highlighting threats to judicial independence in Tanzania.
Legacy and Current Work.
Continued Advocacy:
Despite threats, including a 2017 bombing of her office, she remains super active in legal and human rights circles.
Global Recognition:
She has spoken at forums like the Oslo Freedom Forum, emphasizing the role of law in combating authoritarianism.
Inspiration for Youth:
Her resilience and intellectual rigor have positioned her as a linchpin of resistance for Tanzania’s younger generation.
Below is a detailed breakdown of the reasons and context behind her disbarment:
- Constitutional Challenge to the Attorney General’s Appointment.
Karume represented a constitutional case challenging President John Magufuli’s appointment of Professor Adelardus Kilangi as Attorney General in 2019. The case was filed by ACT-. Wazalendo’s Ado Shaibu and the respondent was the then President John Magufuli (now deceased).
Her written submissions in the case were censured by the State’s counsel as “unprofessional and disrespectful” towards the Attorney General. The then High Court Principal Judge Eliezer Feleshi slapped Ms Karume with an indefinite suspension, devoid of a hearing, as an advocate over alleged misconduct. While acknowledging procedural flaws, Judge Feleshi suspended her license indefinitely and referred the matter to the Advocates’ Disciplinary Committee (ADC) for review.
Since then, Judge Feleshi’s professional career was burnished with quick and successive, dazzling presidential appointments, first as the A.G and now the Appeals Court justice! Both of these dockets carry hefty compensation packages, and lifetime generous pension schemes for himself and his spouse.
Aiding the executive to quash dissent in the judicial corridors invokes its personal inducements. It was a “quid pro quo” gesture without any shred of doubt. The executive just sent an intimidating message that there was an unwritten “pay to play” compensation scheme for those judicial officers who assist the government to root out judicial activists from the judiciary. At all times, the judiciary ought to be a lackey of the executive condoning executive excesses.
- Alleged Misconduct and Procedural Violations.
Lack of Due Process:
The High Court suspended Karume without prior notice or an opportunity to defend herself, violating her right to a fair hearing. The ADC then took over a year to finalize the case, further delaying justice. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Language skewed assessment and Criticism:
The ADC found her submissions’ tone disrespectful and proceeded to disbar her for life, though international bodies like the ICJ passionately argued her language was part of legitimate professional advocacy. The charges were deemed inconsistent with international standards protecting lawyers’ freedom of expression in court proceedings.
It was unprecedented in the history of legal practice in Tanzania for an advocate of the High Court to be “barred for life” from legal practice without considering her trampled rights to a fair hearing at the High Court when she was interdicted. In fact, no Tanzanian advocate has ever faced the harshest punishment the way she did taking into consideration the matter was of first instance regardless of its merits. Only political vendetta could lead to this punitive miscarriage of justice.
- Perceived Political Targeting.
Karume’s case was widely viewed as politically motivated due to her outspoken criticism of the government. She publicly questioned judicial impartiality, stating the suspension aimed to deter her from pursuing constitutional challenges. Her law firm, IMMMA Advocates, also accused her of “political activism” on social media, which allegedly harmed client relationships. Obviously, IMMMA Advocates were more concerned to avoid being inked in the “black book” of the government where financial consequences could be grave.
- International and Legal Backlash.
Organizations like the ICJ and Lawyers for Lawyers condemned the disbarment as a violation of Tanzania’s domestic and international legal obligations, including the right to work and fair trial guarantees under the African Charter and UN principles. They highlighted the threat to judicial independence and lawyer autonomy.
- The Aftermath and Current legal Status
While Karume initially declined to appeal, the TLS and international bodies supported her legal battle. Notably, her TED profile (as of 2025) mentions the High Court later overturned her disbarment for being “illegal,”
Key Controversies.
Judicial Overreach:
The High Court’s abrupt suspension and referral to the ADC were seen as punitive measures rather than proper procedural steps.
Chilling Effect on Legal Profession:
The case raised concerns about retaliatory actions against lawyers advocating for constitutional rights, potentially undermining the rule of law in Tanzania.
In a nutshell, Karume’s disbarment was rooted in her constitutional challenge to the government, perceived disrespect in her legal arguments, and procedural irregularities. The case reflects deep seated tensions between legal advocacy and political power in Tanzania.
Fatma Karume’s disbarment stemmed from her written submissions in a “constitutional case challenging President John Magufuli’s 2019 appointment of Professor Adelardus Kilangi as Tanzania’s Attorney General. Key elements of her submissions and related public statements that provoked the disciplinary reprisal include:
- Criticism of the Attorney General’s Appointment.
Karume argued that Kilangi’s appointment violated constitutional requirements, specifically questioning his eligibility. She contended that the appointment was unconstitutional, as Kilangi allegedly lacked the necessary qualifications under Tanzanian law.
- Allegedly Disrespectful Language.
The State’s counsel accused Karume of using “unprofessional and disrespectful language” in her submissions. Her confrontational tone was intentionally misinterpreted as questioning the integrity of the Attorney General and the judiciary. For example, she reportedly wrote:
“So mark my words, in the event this case fails on the preliminary point, it is not over”.
This statement was misconstrued as a refusal to accept the court’s authority, which the disciplinary committee falsely deemed improper! Her posturing was merely speculative and a self mental preparation for the possible future legal challenges but did not, in any way, disdain the court proceedings. The whole caboodle was moved by revenge rather than sobriety.
- Public Statements Undermining Judicial Impartiality.
Karume publicly criticized the judiciary’s handling of the case. In a tweet, she stated:
“The judiciary is inept or compromised, and maybe through politics can there be real change”.
This remark, made in the context of her suspension, was viewed as undermining judicial authority and violating ethical standards for lawyers.
- Defiance and Implications of Future Challenges.
Karume vowed to continue challenging the appointment in her submissions even if the court dismissed her case. She wrote:
“Be it in 2020 or 2025. And in the latter case, the bench will also be a different one. That is the beauty of the law”.
This was interpreted as a threat to assiduously contest the government’s decisions, which authorities regarded as provocative and beyond the bounds of professional legal advocacy. Moreover, she was overtly discrediting the member of the judiciary, the then Judge Feleshi, who had adversely ordered her suspension from the bar for being too leaning and ingratiating to the executive Branch.
The judiciary, for obvious reasons, abhors being deemed an extension of the executive Branch. They love the elusive facade of “judicial independence” without jealously defending it! When it comes to executive legal assaults, the Tanzania judiciary prefers to capitulate lest risking a costly confrontation with her chief employer and paymaster. Regrettably, self-serving, overweening and compulsive narcissism are the hallmarks of Tanzania judiciary.
- Political Activism and Social Media Engagement.
Though not part of her formal legal submissions, Karume’s public activism on social media exacerbated the backlash. Her law firm, IMMMA Advocates, accused her of mixing “political activism” with legal practice, claiming her posts harmed client relationships. For instance, she bluffed on her X page:
“I am ready to go to jail for 30 years if my incarceration will bring democracy and the rule of law”.
While this online activism occurred outside the courtroom, it contributed to the perception of her characterization as a dangerous, destabilizing figure!
Context and Interpretation.
The disciplinary committee and High Court framed Karume’s language as “unprofessional” and her conduct as breaching the “cardinal rules for lawyers”, particularly the duty to respect judicial processes. International bodies, however, asserted that her averments were protected under principles of free expression and legitimate advocacy.
The claim that “Professor Adelardus Kilangi lacked professional qualifications” as Tanzania’s Attorney General stems from a “constitutional challenge” initiated by Act Wazalendo in 2019, and Fatma Karume was their legal representative. While Kilangi’s credentials were not explicitly disputed in official records, the controversy centered on whether his appointment met the constitutional requirements for the role. Below is an analysis of the allegations and context:
- Constitutional Requirement for the Attorney General.
Under Article 59(3) of Tanzania’s Constitution, the Attorney General must be a legal professional qualified to advise the government on legal matters. While the constitution does not specify exact years of experience, critics argued that Kilangi’s appointment violated historical precedents and implied standards for the role. For example, past AGs like Joseph Warioba and Andrew Chenge had extensive judicial or legal advisory experience before their appointments.
- Allegations of Insufficient Legal Practice.
Karume’s constitutional challenge argued that Kilangi lacked the requisite 10 years of legal practice in Tanzania, a standard she claimed was implicit in the role. This assertion was based on interpretations of legal precedents and the qualifications of previous AGs. Critics contended that Kilangi’s academic and diplomatic background—while distinguished—did not equate to the practical legal experience expected for the position.
- Kilangi’s Professional Background.
Kilangi’s qualifications included:
Academic Expertise:
Professor of international law, legal theory, and mining law at St. Augustine University.
Advocacy:
Member of the East African Law Society and advocate of the High Court of Tanzania.
Diplomatic Roles:
Former president of the African Union Commission on International Law (2012–2014).
Government Advisory Work:
Legal advisor to the Danish Embassy and roles in Tanzanian NGOs.
Despite these impressive credentials, critics maintained that his practical courtroom experience and direct engagement with Tanzanian legal practice were insufficient compared to his predecessors.
- Political Context of the Challenge.
The controversy occurred amid simmering tensions between Tanzania’s government and legal professionals. Karume’s challenge was framed as a critique of judicial independence and President Magufuli’s autocratic administration. Her suspension from legal practice during the case further fueled perceptions of political retaliation.
- Outcome and Legacy.
The High Court suspended Karume indefinitely for her submissions, which were deemed “disrespectful” to the judiciary. However, international bodies like the Commonwealth Lawyers Association condemned the suspension as a violation of due process. Kilangi served as AG until 2021 and was later appointed Tanzania’s ambassador to Brazil.
Key Controversy.
The sizzling debate over Kilangi’s qualifications reflects ambiguities in Tanzania’s constitutional requirements for the AG role. While his academic and diplomatic credentials were robust, critics emphasized the need for practical legal experience—a standard not codified but with cogent historical precedents. The case underscores tensions between legal formalism and politically motivated appointments in Tanzania’s governance.
Here’s a concise summary of why Professor Adelardus Kilangi’s qualifications were contested for Tanzania’s Attorney General (AG) role:
Constitutional Requirements vs. Kilangi’s Background.
- Article 59(3) of Tanzania’s Constitution:
Requires the AG to be a legal professional “qualified to advise the government.”
No explicit criteria.
(e.g., years of practice) aren’t stated, leaving room for interpretation and legal contentions.
- Critics’ Argument:
Past AGs (e.g., Joseph Warioba, Andrew Chenge) had 10+ years of courtroom litigation or judicial experience, setting an implicit standard.
Kilangi’s background was academic/diplomatic (professor, AU legal advisor, NGO roles) but lacked comparable “hands-on legal practice” in Tanzanian courtrooms.
- Kilangi’s Credentials:
Professor of international law and mining law. Advocate of the High Court of Tanzania (technically qualified). Extensive work in legal theory, diplomacy, and policy—not litigation.
Why This Sparked Controversy?
Legal vs. Political Interpretation:
Critics saw Magufuli’s appointment as prioritizing loyalty over legal rigor.
Ambiguity in the Constitution:
The lack of explicit rules allowed the government to appoint Kilangi, despite critics arguing he didn’t meet the “spirit” of the role.
Broader Political Context:
The challenge occurred amid Magufuli’s rampant crackdown on dissent, with Karume’s disbarment viewed as retaliation.
Key Takeaway.
Kilangi wasn’t “unqualified” in a strict legal sense but was seen as lacking the “practical legal experience” traditionally associated with the AG role. The dispute highlights how constitutional ambiguities and political agendas can shape high-stakes appointments.
Fatma Karume’s Belligerent Quotes.
On Legal Battles:
“When you enter a fight, you need to know who you are fighting, the role of the battle, and the independence of the referee.”
On Activism:
“I am ready to go to jail for 30 years if my incarceration will bring democracy and the rule of law.”
My take:
The A.G office’s perseverance with the legal imbroglio against an advocate of repute, Fatma Karume, before the Appeals Court is another uncontested evidence that president Samia’s 4Rs were a political gambit but nothing else. Contrary to her much publicised 4Rs philosophy, she is ferociously pursuing her predecessor’s perceived political enemies without let up!
For a government always clamouring to expand employment opportunities, the legal persecution of the fearless Fatma Karume is a smack on the face to all this regime claims to stand for. On her part, Fatma Karume is indeed a “prisoner of conscience” knowing her legal troubles are a brazen attempt to muzzle her freedom of expression and speech.
The government is also attempting to use her tortuous legal journey to send a warning to all who question the regime’s authoritarianism. The dissidents will be persecuted for their fidelity to the constitution and the rule of law!
How scary.
Read more analysis by Rutashubanyuma Nestory
