By Adonis Byemelwa
As Tanzania approaches the first anniversary of the violence surrounding the October 2025 general election, a proposal for a National Day of Mourning is raising a difficult question: how can a country honour those who died while also confronting the unanswered questions left by the crisis?
The proposal was among 12 short-term recommendations made by the Presidential Commission to Investigate the Events of Violence and Breach of Peace that Occurred During and After the October 2025 General Election. Presenting the commission’s report on April 23, 2026, its chairperson, retired Chief Justice Mohamed Chande Othman, recommended that the government set aside a day to remember more than 500 people who died during the violence.
The commission recorded at least 518 deaths, 490 men and 28 women, and cautioned that the figure was not final or conclusive. The report also described people who remained missing and cases in which relatives said bodies they had expected to collect could no longer be found.
The commission’s findings give the proposal a significance beyond a ceremonial date. The report documented 2,390 people treated in public and private health facilities for injuries connected to the violence, while also recommending psychological and social support for affected communities. It identified political, economic and social grievances that, in its assessment, contributed to the crisis. These findings make clear that remembrance, medical and psychosocial support, transparent investigations and reform are related responsibilities, not substitutes for one another.
In interviews published in the original report from Dar es Salaam, Kigoma and Dodoma, residents expressed different views about whether a National Day of Mourning would help the country remember and learn from the violence. Christopher Michael, a resident of Dodoma, said memories of the events continued to disturb his sleep.
He supported a commemoration so that “those mistakes are not repeated.” Andrew Gwiro, from Kigoma, said a day of remembrance could help future generations understand that the events had happened. These accounts are individual testimonies, not a representative survey of national opinion; the published material does not specify the total number of people interviewed or how they were selected.
Some people fear an annual observance could reopen painful memories. Paul Lugano, a Dar es Salaam resident, said reminders could stir “more pain, and sometimes even more anger.” A national commemoration should therefore not force survivors or bereaved relatives into public rituals. It should be shaped with affected families, allow private remembrance and connect people who need help with appropriate psychosocial support.
Rwanda’s annual Kwibuka commemoration offers a useful comparison, although the two histories are not equivalent. Kwibuka means “to remember” in Kinyarwanda and commemorates the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi. Rwanda’s programme begins on April 7 and continues for 100 days. Activities include remembrance ceremonies, memorial-site visits, education and survivor support. Its distinct history should not be equated with Tanzania’s election-related violence.
At the 32nd commemoration in Kigali on April 7, 2026, President Paul Kagame said: “Kwibuka carries profound meaning for our nation. It is how we confront and overcome the divisions that nearly destroyed us.” He also emphasised unity, safety and dignity for survivors. These are statements by Rwanda’s president at an official ceremony, not independently gathered views from ordinary Rwandans.
Rwanda’s High Commissioner to Tanzania, General Patrick Nyamvumba, also honoured genocide victims at the Kwibuka 31 commemoration in Dar es Salaam on April 7, 2025, thanking those who gathered in solidarity with survivors. The event showed how remembrance can continue beyond Rwanda through public ceremonies and engagement with communities abroad.
Rwanda’s framework illustrates how remembrance can extend beyond one annual ceremony. It provides for a week of mourning from April 7 to 13 and a 100-day remembrance period, including memorial visits, burial of victims’ remains when discovered, and activities to honour victims and support survivors. Such arrangements require clear responsibility, resources and continuity. They do not mean every social or political challenge has been resolved, and Rwanda’s model should not be copied mechanically.
In Tanzania, “October 29” has become shorthand for the crisis, although violence continued for several days after demonstrations began on election day. Marking October 29 could provide a clear annual moment of remembrance, but the programme should also recognise people who died, were injured or went missing in the days that followed. Some families still need answers about relatives’ fates.
The commission reported deaths in several regions, including Dar es Salaam, Mwanza, Mbeya and Arusha, and said its investigation covered affected areas in 11 regions. To make a national day inclusive, consultations should extend beyond major cities. Direct interviews in Kahama and other parts of Shinyanga, Bukoba and Mwanza could help establish how residents and affected families view the proposal. Their views should be gathered and attributed accurately, not inferred from statistics.
The commission also identified political grievances, including demands for a new constitution and electoral reforms; economic concerns such as unemployment, the cost of living and unequal opportunities; and social issues including corruption, abductions and disappearances. These findings should prompt transparent follow-up on which recommendations have been implemented and which remain outstanding.
The information available for this article does not establish whether the government has formally accepted the recommendation, selected a date or announced an implementation plan. Authorities should clarify the proposal’s status, who would organise and fund the commemoration, and how survivors and victims’ families would help shape it.
Further reporting should establish the status of investigations into deaths and missing-person cases, how the death toll will be updated if new evidence emerges, and what medical, psychological and social support is available. The commission cautioned that its death toll might change. Any update should distinguish confirmed information from allegations and explain how figures were compiled.
A day of mourning can acknowledge loss, but it cannot by itself establish what happened in every case, determine legal responsibility or provide remedies to affected families. Those tasks require sustained institutional work, transparent processes and meaningful access to information.
Kwibuka shows how ceremonies, education, memorials and survivor support can give remembrance a lasting public place. Tanzania’s approach should reflect its own circumstances and the wishes of people directly affected by the October 2025 violence. Consultation should include bereaved families, survivors, civil society, faith leaders, historians, trauma specialists and representatives from affected regions.
A National Day of Mourning could honour those who died and recognise survivors’ suffering. Its credibility will depend on what accompanies it: transparent information, support for families, serious attention to missing-person cases and demonstrable progress on the commission’s recommendations.
The central question is not only whether Tanzania should set aside a day to remember October 29. It is whether remembrance will lead to truth, dignity, support and action, so that those who died are not reduced to a number, families are not left alone with unanswered questions, and the commitment that such violence must never happen again is reflected in public decisions.