By Adonis Byemelwa
Dar es Salaam — The questioning of Tanganyika Law Society (TLS) president Boniface Mwabukusi by police on October 15 has intensified a dispute beyond one lawyer’s future. At its centre is a question for Tanzania’s legal system: how can professional discipline be enforced without undermining lawyers who challenge state action?
In a report published on October 15, Nipashe said Mwabukusi made public remarks after being questioned at Dar es Salaam Central Police Station. He urged lawyers to defend the rule of law, saying: “Siyo wakati wa unyonge, ni wakati wa kuthibitisha maana halisi ya utawala wa sheria”. This is not a time for weakness, but a time to demonstrate the meaning of the rule of law.
Mwanahalisi Online, reporting on October 15, quoted defence lawyer Jebra Kambole as saying Mwabukusi had been questioned as a witness, not a suspect, over allegations that the TLS Governing Council received money to finance demonstrations planned for October 29.
Kambole said the questioning lasted about three hours and that Mwabukusi told police the society’s accounts were open to scrutiny and had received no such money. The report also mentioned an allegation about funding young people to travel to Kenya for training, which the defence rejected.
The police’s own account was not included in the reports cited here, and no independently verified evidence establishing the allegations was available for this think piece.
The claims should therefore be treated as allegations, not proof of wrongdoing. Police may investigate credible public-order concerns, but transparency about the basis of an inquiry is essential when the person questioned leads a professional body engaged in public-interest advocacy.
The police inquiry is only one front in the dispute. Mwabukusi faces disciplinary proceedings that could remove him from the roll of advocates. The Chanzo reported on October 12 that the High Court had temporarily paused the case through an October 7 order, preserving the status quo while a constitutional challenge proceeds. The order did not decide the complaint’s merits or the framework’s constitutionality.
Nipashe reported on October 14 that Mwabukusi said his legal team had filed a constitutional case in the High Court registry in Dodoma and that the matter was expected to be mentioned on October 16. The Chanzo said the October 7 order preserved the status quo. The exact scope and current effect should be taken from the court document itself; media accounts do not substitute for the order.
The disciplinary dispute followed public statements by Mwabukusi about opposition leader and former TLS president Tundu Lissu, who faces treason charges. Mwabukusi argues that TLS is acting within its institutional role by calling for due process.
The complaint, as reported by The Chanzo, concerns statements made on behalf of the bar association and whether they crossed professional boundaries while a criminal case was active.
The institutional distinction matters. The statutory Advocates Committee established under the Advocates Act is not the same as the internal ethics structures established within TLS under the Tanganyika Law Society (Ethics) Regulations of 2022, which include chapter-level committees and a national ethics committee.
The existence of internal bodies does not establish that every complaint must be heard by them; jurisdiction depends on the governing legislation and the legal basis of the proceedings.
Critics have questioned the statutory committee’s composition and government officials’ participation in professional discipline. Mwabukusi’s constitutional challenge reportedly contests aspects of the framework.
Nonetheless, it would be premature to conclude that the committee is unlawfully constituted or the complaint improperly routed before the courts decide. The issue is whether the law provides an impartial process, procedural safeguards and judicial review.
A joint statement reported by The Chanzo said the East Africa Law Society, International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, Lawyers for Lawyers, Pan African Lawyers Union and Southern African Development Community Lawyers Association had expressed solidarity with Mwabukusi.
They welcomed the High Court’s stay and warned that permanent removal from the roll for communicating a bar-association position would be exceptionally severe. Their intervention reflects concern about a chilling effect, but it is an advocacy position, not a judicial finding.
The international framework is set out in the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, adopted in 1990. Principle 16 says governments should ensure lawyers can perform professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference, and should not impose sanctions for actions consistent with recognised professional duties and ethics.
Principle 28 says disciplinary proceedings should be heard by an impartial professional committee, an independent statutory authority or a court, and be subject to independent judicial review.
These principles do not exempt lawyers from accountability. They require a balance between fair discipline for genuine misconduct and freedom to perform lawful professional duties without improper interference. In Mwabukusi’s case, that balance remains unresolved while the constitutional challenge is pending.
The dispute has revived memories of Fatma Karume, another former TLS president who was removed from the roll in 2020 after a complaint arising from written submissions in a constitutional case challenging President John Magufuli’s appointment of Adelardus Kilangi as Attorney General.
Karume had represented opposition politician Ado Shaibu. The complaint alleged that her submissions were professionally improper, and a High Court judge suspended her and referred the matter for disciplinary action.
In June 2021, a three-judge High Court panel allowed Karume’s appeal on procedural grounds. In Fatma Amani Karume v Attorney General and Another, Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2020, the court held that the disciplinary application was incompetent because the complaint had not been referred in the manner directed by an earlier court order.
The committee’s decision was set aside, and proceedings quashed. The judgment did not place advocates above professional rules; it confirmed that disciplinary action must follow lawful procedure.
The comparison is important but not exact. Karume’s case concerned a complaint about court submissions; Mwabukusi’s concerned public statements about a pending criminal prosecution and a constitutional challenge to the disciplinary framework.
Both raise the question of whether rules governing lawyers are applied through fair procedures when their conduct intersects with politically sensitive disputes.
Lissu links the two episodes. He was TLS president when he survived an assassination attempt in 2017 and later became a prominent opposition figure. Karume became a leading defender of bar independence during the political climate that followed his attack.
Mwabukusi says he is acting on TLS’s public-interest mandate by demanding due process for Lissu. These connections explain the stakes but do not decide the legal merits.
The test now lies with the courts and institutions involved. Authorities should disclose the legal basis for proceedings through proper channels, disciplinary bodies should apply the law consistently, and TLS should answer substantiated allegations with evidence.
International support cannot replace judicial scrutiny, just as the state’s power to regulate lawyers cannot remove the need for independence and fairness.
The High Court’s order is temporary, and the constitutional questions remain open. Its decisions will matter to Mwabukusi and to the boundaries between professional discipline, freedom of advocacy and the public role of a bar association. The question is not whether lawyers stand above the law, but whether the law can discipline them without silencing them in practice.