Tanzania Defamation Laws: Civil, Criminal & Defences

Defamation in Tanzania is now treated mainly as a civil matter. A 2023 amendment to the Media Services Act 2016 made defamation a civil rather than a criminal case, and the old Penal Code defamation offences were repealed. However, the Cybercrimes Act 2015 still criminalizes the publication of false information online, which overlaps with online defamation.

Is defamation civil or criminal in Tanzania?

Defamation in Tanzania is now principally a civil matter, but the picture has layers. The criminal defamation provisions that once sat in the Penal Code were repealed, and the Media Services Act 2016 became the main statute dealing with defamation. On 13 June 2023, through the Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, Parliament amended the Media Services Act so that defamation is tried as a civil case rather than a criminal one, a change welcomed by press-freedom monitors. At the same time, the Cybercrimes Act 2015 remains in force and separately criminalizes the publication of false, deceptive, misleading or inaccurate information through a computer system, an offence that overlaps with online defamation. So ordinary defamation is now pursued civilly, while false online statements can still attract criminal liability under the cybercrime law.

What counts as defamation?

Under the Media Services Act 2016, defamatory matter is a statement likely to injure the reputation of a person by exposing them to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or likely to damage them in their office, profession or trade. To establish civil defamation, a claimant generally must show that the statement was defamatory, that it identified the claimant, that it was published to a third party, that it was false, and that it was not protected by a privilege or other defence. Both written and spoken statements can be defamatory, covering newspapers, broadcasts, books and online posts. The Act builds on common-law principles inherited through Tanzania's legal system, so courts also draw on established case law about defamatory meaning, identification and publication when deciding whether particular words injured a person's reputation.

Criminal defamation and the cybercrime overlap

Ordinary criminal defamation has been removed, but a related online offence remains. The table summarises the position.

Watch out: Even though ordinary defamation is now civil, posting false statements about a person online can still be charged criminally under section 16 of the Cybercrimes Act 2015, which press-freedom groups say has been used against critics and journalists.

What defences are available?

The Media Services Act and the underlying common law give a civil defamation defendant the established defences. Truth, or justification, is a defence where the statement is substantially true, and the Act frames it in terms of truth published for the public benefit. Honest opinion, or fair comment, protects genuinely held opinion on a matter of public interest that is based on true facts. Privilege protects statements made on protected occasions: fair and accurate reports of parliamentary and judicial proceedings attract privilege, and qualified privilege applies where there is a duty or interest to communicate and no malice. The 2023 amendment adjusted the privilege provisions in the Act, including the treatment of absolute privilege. For a charge under the Cybercrimes Act, the focus is on whether the information published was false, which makes accuracy the central practical defence.

Remedies and damages

In a civil defamation claim under the Media Services Act and the common law, the principal remedy is damages to compensate the claimant for the injury to reputation. Courts award general damages, which are presumed once defamatory publication is established, and special damages where actual financial loss is proved. The amount depends on the gravity of the allegation, the extent of publication and the conduct of the defendant, including any apology, retraction or correction, which can reduce the award. Courts can also grant an injunction to restrain continued or threatened publication, which is significant in online cases where removal of the content is the priority. Where conduct is prosecuted under the Cybercrimes Act 2015 instead, the consequences are criminal, including fines and the possibility of imprisonment under that Act.

Limitation period

The time available to bring a civil defamation claim in Tanzania is governed by the general law on limitation of actions rather than a single defamation-specific rule, and a claimant should bring the claim promptly after the defamatory statement is published rather than assume a long period remains. Because the limitation period for a particular claim can depend on how the action is framed and on the applicable schedule in the limitation legislation, a person who has been defamed should treat the deadline as a working constraint and seek advice quickly. For conduct prosecuted under the Cybercrimes Act 2015, the relevant time limits and procedure are those that apply to criminal proceedings, which differ from the civil limitation rules.

Online and social media defamation

Online defamation in Tanzania can engage two distinct regimes. As a civil matter, a defamatory post on social media, a blog or a messaging platform can ground a claim for damages and an injunction under the Media Services Act and the common law, applying the ordinary principles of defamatory meaning, identification and publication. Separately, the Cybercrimes Act 2015 criminalizes the publication of false, deceptive, misleading or inaccurate information through a computer system, and section 16 has been used in practice against online statements that authorities consider false, including posts by critics and journalists. A person targeted online may therefore face a civil claim, a criminal charge under the cybercrime law, or both, and the practical priority is often securing removal of the content while assessing which regime applies.

How a defamation claim is brought

A civil defamation claim is filed in the appropriate court, generally beginning with a demand for a retraction, apology and damages, followed by a plaint if the matter is not resolved. The claimant pleads the defamatory words, their meaning, the identification of the claimant and the publication, and the defendant raises defences such as truth and public benefit, fair comment or privilege. Where ongoing harm needs to be stopped, an application for an injunction can be made to restrain further publication or compel removal of online material. A criminal matter under the Cybercrimes Act 2015 is handled differently, as a prosecution brought by the State through the police and prosecution service, so a complainant who alleges a false online publication may report it for investigation rather than suing directly.