GENEVA: As the world grapples with the ongoing war in the Middle East — a conflict already marked by serious violations of state sovereignty and human rights — the 61st session of the United Nations Human Rights Council is coincidentally taking place in Geneva.
During a general debate at the session, the human rights ambassador of the United Kingdom, Eleanor Sanders, among other submissions, called for an independent investigation into post-election unrest in Tanzania.
While the proposal may claim to pursue accountability and transparency, she overlooked the importance of respecting the country’s sovereignty and the right to handle internal matters independently.
External calls for intervention risk undermining Tanzania’s authority and deliberately seeks to destabilise its efforts to address the situation after isolated, uncalled for incidents during the last year’s election.
Such actions also set a troubling precedent in which external powers attempt to dictate how nations address domestic challenges under the banner of human rights and justice. This is an intrusion that must be firmly rejected.
International relations function best when founded on mutual respect. Discussions about human rights should not become lectures. Nations are sovereign entities with their own histories, legal systems and democratic processes. Assisting one another is constructive; interference is not.
While a few nations continue to violate international law, sovereignty must remain a cornerstone of the international order—especially if the so-called mature democracies genuinely claim to uphold and respect human rights.
It is a legal principle enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, which affirms the equality of all member states. No country has the authority to govern another. Article 2(7) explicitly states that the UN shall not interfere in domestic matters, a rule designed to maintain stability and respect among nations.
International law applies universally, regardless of a nation’s size or influence. Tanzania’s right to self-governance is as valid as that of any other country, including the United Kingdom. Sovereignty is rooted in the ability of nations to make their own decisions, free from external coercion.
Historically, Tanzania’s leaders — particularly the founding president Julius Nyerere — emphasised self-reliance and national unity after independence, a position held by all his successors. The country’s chosen path prioritised stability and development. In a region often affected by political turbulence, Tanzania has maintained peace and stability, an achievement worthy of recognition.
This does not suggest that the nation is without challenges. No country is perfect. Democratic societies inevitably face obstacles, but the key lies in how those challenges are addressed. Domestic institutions — courts, parliaments and oversight bodies — exist precisely to examine allegations and deliver justice where necessary.
Accountability remains essential. If credible evidence of misconduct exists, it should be thoroughly investigated. Victims deserve justice and the public deserves transparency. Importantly, such investigations can and should be conducted through Tanzania’s own legal system.
International human rights law supports this approach. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights safeguards freedoms of expression and assembly while recognising that rights may be lawfully limited in certain circumstances to protect public order and national security. These provisions are universal and apply equally to all nations.
In many democracies, unrest is investigated through domestic mechanisms. When disturbances occur in capitals such as London, Paris or Washington, national authorities typically lead the process. Following the January 6 United States Capitol attack, for example, investigations and prosecutions were conducted by the United States Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and U.S. courts under national law. Sovereign responsibility remained the guiding principle.
Similarly, Tanzania’s institutions are well equipped to address allegations of misconduct. If issues arise, they should be examined through national mechanisms. Sovereignty entails responsibility, not impunity, and emphasises exercising authority within a nation’s legal framework.
A broader question nevertheless persists: why does global scrutiny sometimes appear uneven? Human rights organisations have documented concerns in both developed and developing countries. Reports of discrimination, social tensions and excessive use of force have emerged in parts of Europe and North America, yet international pressure often appears more intense on less developed nations.
This imbalance is largely shaped by geopolitical realities rather than legal principles. Wealthier nations possess greater diplomatic influence and global media reach, which amplifies their perspectives. Conversely, voices from developing countries often struggle to be heard, creating perceptions of double standards.
Universal human rights principles call for consistency. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms that all individuals are born free and equal in dignity and rights. The emphasis on “all” underscores that human rights protections are strongest when applied without bias or selectivity.
Experience also demonstrates that sovereignty and human rights can coexist. Democratic societies strengthen their legal systems through constitutional reforms and institutional development. Local ownership of reforms enhances legitimacy and sustainability.
External support, through dialogue, technical assistance and capacity-building, can strengthen domestic efforts without undermining sovereignty. Genuine cooperation respects national agency and recognises that lasting progress emerges from within societies.
Tanzania’s history reflects this approach, with domestic dialogue and institutional development guiding its evolution.
It is important to underscore here that; governments must also operate within practical realities. Political unrest can disrupt economic activity, development and livelihoods. International law recognises that states may take proportionate measures to maintain order, similar to provisions applied in European democracies during emergencies.
The challenge lies in maintaining balance. Security measures must remain lawful and consistent with human rights standards, while transparency and oversight sustain public confidence. Domestic institutions are best placed to manage these complexities because they understand local contexts.
International partners can contribute constructively through dialogue, technical assistance and institutional support without infringing on sovereignty. Respectful engagement fosters trust and produces more sustainable outcomes.
Diplomacy ultimately depends on relationships built on understanding. Public criticism that questions the competence of national institutions can sometimes alienate the societies it intends to support. Respectful language and mutual understanding are therefore essential.
Tanzania’s post-election inquiry wins UN praise as rights body reviews global challenges
Tanzania’s achievements over the years, including peace, tranquility, national unity and socio-economic advancement since independence deserve recognition. The country has maintained regional stability and continues strengthening its institutions. While challenges remain, progress is evident. A balanced perspective acknowledges both strengths and areas for improvement.
Sovereignty and accountability are complementary principles. Sovereignty provides the framework for responsible governance, while accountability ensures that institutions uphold the rule of law. Domestic mechanisms remain responsible for addressing grievances within internationally recognised norms.
The central point is clear: Tanzania has the right to manage its internal affairs through its legal and democratic processes, that’s why President Samia Suluhu Hassan formed the inquiry commission to investigate into the incidents of October 29, 2025. Yes, external actors may offer support and advice, but solutions must remain domestically driven.
Unarguably, accountability and transparency are indispensable to good governance. Responsible institutions build public trust, and constructive scrutiny can strengthen systems. The objective is to ensure that oversight occurs through appropriate channels rather than external pressure.
International relations function best on the basis of equality and mutual respect. Dialogue should replace coercion, and understanding should replace presumption. Human rights and sovereignty are not opposing principles; they reinforce one another.
Tanzania’s future ultimately depends on its people and institutions. External partners may accompany this journey, but primary responsibility rests within the country itself. Sustainable progress grows from within societies.
In an interconnected world, cooperation remains essential in addressing shared challenges — development, security and human rights. Such cooperation must always respect sovereignty and equality, the foundations of genuine partnership.
Constructive dialogue about Tanzania should therefore be grounded in respect for the country’s sovereignty and its capacity to manage its own affairs in the best possible way, with national interests taking precedence over any individual or external influence.
