By Adonis Byemelwa
Tanzania has long been viewed as a beacon of peace and stability in the East African region. For decades, it has played host to numerous international summits, diplomatic negotiations, and regional dialogues—its reputation forged through deliberate political restraint, neighborliness, and hospitality.
So, when the East Africa Law Society (EALS) announced the sudden relocation of its prestigious 30th Annual Conference and General Meeting from Zanzibar to Addis Ababa, citing safety and political concerns, many within and beyond Tanzania were left stunned.
Has the region's most peaceful nation become too dangerous to host a gathering of lawyers? Or has perception blurred reality, inflaming an issue that demands maturity and balance?
The EALS decision was relayed through a communiqué by its President, Ramadhan Abubakar, who attributed the shift to the tense political climate in Tanzania and a lack of assurances over the safety of delegates.
The upcoming general elections were also noted as a contributing factor. Yet, this decision seems to place an exaggerated spotlight on isolated incidents, branding the nation as a security risk without sufficient justification. If anything, this move reflects more of a phobia than a fair assessment of present conditions.
Yes, there were deportations—most notably of Kenyan activists Martha Karua and former Chief Justice Willy Mutunga, who had traveled to observe court proceedings involving opposition figure Tundu Lissu. And yes, human rights activists Agatha Atuhaire and Boniface Mwangi allege they faced mistreatment while in Tanzania.
These incidents, however, do not paint the full picture of an entire nation. They are troubling and deserve scrutiny, no doubt, but they are not proof that Tanzania is unfit to host a professional, continental forum.
Kenya itself has faced grave accusations of police brutality—cases which have led to recent legal action within its borders. Does this suggest Kenya is unsafe for conferences? Certainly not. The same lens must be applied evenly.
It is also important to consider the context of these deportations. Tanzania, like every sovereign state, has the right to manage its borders and determine who may or may not engage in what it deems interference in internal affairs. For instance, in 2017, the United States denied entry to activists from Haiti and several African nations who were perceived to be critical of U.S. immigration policies. National sovereignty, whether in the U.S. or Tanzania, often includes the discretion to act in defense of internal political processes.
The EALS communiqué did not criticize Tanzanian authorities directly, but the implications are unmistakable. They suggest that without what they termed “firm guarantees,” Tanzania poses a risk.
Yet, in failing to acknowledge the long-standing peace and safety Tanzanians have enjoyed, the EALS has inadvertently painted the nation with a brush that lacks depth and perspective. Zanzibar is not a war zone. Arusha, slated to host the 2027 AFCON tournament, is not under siege. If Tanzania were truly unstable, would thousands of Kenyans continue to cross over to trade, seek medical services, or even intermarry with Tanzanians?
“There are no countries without challenges,” as one seasoned observer noted, “but we do not solve them by withdrawing from dialogue.” The unfortunate choice to move the EALS conference denies Tanzanians—and indeed the East African legal fraternity—a unique opportunity to bridge divides in the very spirit of legal cooperation and regional integration.
This is not the first time that countries have navigated tricky political terrain without shutting down forums of engagement. The United Kingdom has faced ongoing criticism over its treatment of asylum seekers and issues of racial discrimination, but London remains a hub for global conferences.
In South Africa, xenophobic attacks against Nigerians and other African nationals have marred its reputation, yet no African body has withdrawn from hosting key events in Johannesburg. The U.S., despite the global uproar over the killing of George Floyd and the subsequent Black Lives Matter protests, did not lose its standing as a host for world events. Double standards must be called out when they appear.
Tanzania’s Speaker of the National Assembly rightly demanded that MPs retract celebratory remarks about the activists’ alleged mistreatment. That act was an effort to restore decorum and accountability in political discourse. Similarly, Kenya’s Foreign Minister and even President Ruto extended apologies for the activists’ intrusion into Tanzania’s judicial affairs—an important diplomatic overture. These are not signs of a country spiraling out of control but rather of one engaging in mature statecraft.
Moreover, the bond between Tanzania and Kenya is too deep to be undone by isolated incidents. During recent droughts, Kenya depended on Tanzanian grain. Tanzanians seek healthcare in Nairobi while Kenyans pursue trade in Arusha and Mwanza.
Families straddle borders; economies are intertwined. Our wildlife migrates between the Serengeti and Masaimara as if guided by invisible treaties of coexistence. Surely, if animals know no boundaries, should human beings armed with education, law degrees, and diplomatic training not show a better example?
This relocation has hurt Zanzibar's image as well. The archipelago, renowned for its beauty and cultural richness, would have provided the perfect backdrop for reflection, dialogue, and reconciliation. Tourists continue to flock to Zanzibar in large numbers. The blue economy thrives. Delegates would have benefited from seeing a different side of Tanzania—far from the headlines and heated social media debates.
The conference could have been a platform for healing, not deepening suspicion. For Tanzanian youth who aspire to become lawyers, for scholars who seek to engage regional legal frameworks, this was a lost moment. EALS’s decision, while perhaps made in caution, was also made in haste. To many observers, it seems the society succumbed to fear and external pressure rather than rising above the moment to craft a new chapter in East African legal unity.
President Samia Suluhu Hassan, as Chair of the SADC Peace and Security Council, has made enormous strides in regional diplomacy. Her silent diplomacy has resolved crises far beyond Tanzania’s borders. To imply she presides over a country unsafe for visiting lawyers is to undermine the very leadership that the region has often depended on in times of tension.
The damage done by these perceptions may take time to reverse. It may take two years, or more, to repair Tanzania’s image in the eyes of some. But perception is not always truth, and the lived experience of those residing in and visiting Tanzania tells a different story. A story of normalcy, of hospitality, of peace. We must not allow an unbalanced narrative to persist.
Ultimately, we must ask: what is the safest place in East Africa? Kenya has had its security breaches. Uganda, too. Somalia battles Al-Shabaab. South Sudan remains politically fragile. Rwanda has strict civic controls. No nation is without fault. But Tanzania continues to be that reliable neighbor, that soft-spoken mediator, that haven of peace.
Let us not fan the flames where diplomacy is needed. Let the EALS remember that it was born out of unity, not division. Let the lawyers, the jurists, and the thought leaders in the region return to reason and weigh facts beyond headlines. Let the next conference be less about fear and more about forging the region’s future. And perhaps, let it return—sooner rather than later—to where it should have been held in the first place: Zanzibar.