By Adonis Byemelwa
A recent warning from Chief Justice George Mcheche Masaju about attacks on the judiciary has opened a much bigger debate in Tanzania: where does legitimate criticism of the courts end and contempt begin, and how can a judiciary demand respect while also answering citizens who complain about delays, access and fairness?
The debate has been sharpened by Bishop Dr Benson Bagonza of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania’s Karagwe Diocese, who has challenged the emphasis on protecting the courts from public criticism and instead pointed to the institutional problems that, in his view, can weaken public confidence in justice.
At the centre of the disagreement is a question that goes beyond one speech or one response. A court needs authority to function, but that authority depends not only on laws and sanctions. It also depends on whether citizens believe that the institution is independent, fair, accessible and capable of delivering justice within a reasonable time.
Masaju has made judicial independence and institutional discipline central themes of his leadership since becoming Chief Justice in June 2025. His administration has also pursued reforms aimed at reducing delays, expanding access and strengthening accountability, making the current debate more complicated than a simple confrontation between a court demanding respect and citizens demanding reform.
The Chief Justice’s position is that judicial authority cannot survive if court proceedings and decisions are routinely ridiculed, disrupted or subjected to improper pressure. From that perspective, criticism of a judgment is not automatically illegitimate, but conduct that interferes with proceedings or intimidates judicial officers can damage the administration of justice itself.
That concern has wider constitutional importance. Courts must be able to make decisions without fear of political pressure, public intimidation or organised interference. At the same time, judicial independence does not mean immunity from scrutiny. A court that exercises public power must be prepared to explain its performance, improve its weaknesses and accept lawful criticism.
That distinction is where Bagonza’s intervention becomes important. His argument, as presented in the public debate, is that ordinary citizens do not necessarily lose faith in courts because they dislike the institution. They may lose confidence because they encounter delays, bureaucracy, expensive legal processes or behaviour that makes justice appear distant from everyday life.
There is evidence that makes that argument impossible to dismiss. An Afrobarometer survey released in July 2026 found that 71 per cent of Tanzanians felt somewhat or very confident that ordinary people who are wronged can obtain justice through the courts. But only 47 per cent were confident that a legal case would be resolved within a reasonable time.
The same survey found that 84 per cent expressed trust in the courts, while 63 per cent believed that at least some judges and magistrates were corrupt. Six in ten respondents said they would turn to a political leader to resolve a legal problem, compared with only five per cent who would turn to a local court.
Those numbers reveal a more complicated public mood than either side of the debate might suggest. Tanzanians can respect the judiciary and still complain about it. They can support the rule of law while demanding faster decisions. They can believe courts are important while remaining worried about corruption, affordability and unequal treatment.
That is why describing public criticism simply as contempt risks missing an important part of the story. Nonetheless, treating every criticism as proof of judicial failure would also be dangerous. A judge must be protected from intimidation, and litigants must not be allowed to turn public pressure into an alternative form of litigation.
The judiciary itself appears to recognise this tension. Its 2025 comprehensive performance report records measures aimed at improving access and efficiency, including 15 new primary court stations, new procedural rules and continued upgrading of electronic case-management systems. The report also identifies accountability and public trust as important areas of judicial performance.
The reform figures are significant. The Judiciary reported a 104.5 per cent case-clearance rate in 2025, an 88.4 per cent disposal rate and an average time taken of 66 days, while backlog remained within its stated strategic target. At primary-court level, the report recorded a 102.2 per cent clearance rate and a 34.6 per cent reduction in pending cases.
Earlier figures also showed substantial movement. Between September and December 2025, courts reportedly received 30,076 cases and concluded 38,639, producing a 128 per cent disposal rate for the period and reducing pending cases from 22,735 to 14,172.
These figures complicate the claim that the judiciary is simply failing to respond to public concerns. There is evidence of significant institutional reform. But reform statistics do not automatically settle questions about independence, corruption, individual cases or the experience of a citizen waiting years for a decision.
That is where other voices in Tanzania’s legal and political community have entered the conversation. Speaking at the 2026 Law Day celebrations, Vice-President Emmanuel Nchimbi offered a formulation that sits between institutional defence and public accountability. He said judicial independence was essential, but warned that it should not become a shield for “negligence or bias.”
That distinction is crucial. Independence protects judges from improper interference; it does not remove their obligation to act competently, impartially and according to the law.
Chief Justice Masaju has made a similar argument from the institutional side. At the Law Day event, he stressed that justice must be based on the Constitution, the law and the evidence presented before the court. The judiciary has also invested in technology, including plans for artificial-intelligence-supported transcription and translation, as part of efforts to improve efficiency.
Chief Justice George Mcheche Masaju has backed structural changes aimed at strengthening judicial independence, including removing Regional Commissioners, District Commissioners and other administrative officials from judicial ethics committees. He has argued that disciplinary matters should remain within the judiciary to avoid conflicts of interest and protect the integrity of judicial processes.
The move is significant because it suggests that judicial independence is not simply about shielding judges from angry citizens or public criticism. It also requires protecting courts from improper influence by other arms of the state.
So far, questions about practical judicial independence remain part of Tanzania’s wider legal debate. Critics continue to raise concerns about executive influence, judicial appointments, financing and disciplinary structures, although such concerns should not automatically be interpreted as evidence that individual judges are politically controlled.
Human rights lawyer Dr Rugemeleza Nshala offered a stark assessment during the 2026 Law Day debate, saying: “I would be lying if I said there is a rule of law in Tanzania.” He warned that even the perception that judges can be influenced can weaken public confidence in the justice system.
The judiciary, however, points to reforms and improved performance. It has expanded primary courts, promoted mediation, introduced digital systems and pursued measures to reduce case backlogs. These efforts indicate that improving public confidence is already part of the institution’s reform agenda.
The result is a striking paradox: Tanzanians can respect the courts while remaining concerned about delays, corruption, fairness and access to justice.
That tension sits at the heart of the Masaju-Bagonza debate. Bishop Benson Bagonza argues that public trust cannot simply be demanded; it must be earned through timely, transparent and impartial justice. Masaju’s position carries an equally important warning: judicial authority cannot survive if criticism becomes intimidation or interference with proceedings.
Tanzania therefore needs both principles to hold. Courts must be independent enough to resist political pressure and strong enough to protect their authority, while remaining open to lawful criticism. A judiciary earns lasting respect not by silencing its critics, but by delivering justice fairly, independently and on time.
