AFRICAN UNION
UNION AFRICAINE
UNIÃO AFRICANA
African Commission on
Human & Peoples’ Rights
Commission Africaine des Droits
de l’Homme& des Peuples
No. 31 Bijilo Annex Lay-out, Kombo North District, Western Region, P. O. Box 673, Banjul,
The Gambia Tel: (220) 441 05 05 /441 05 06, Fax: (220) 441 05 04 E-mail: aubanjul@africa-union.org; Web www.achpr.org
REPORT OF THE JOINT PROMOTION AND FACT-FINDING MISSION
TO THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
BY
HON. COMMISSIONER OURVEENA GEEREESHA TOPSY-SONOO
&
HON. COMMISSIONER DR LITHA MUSYMI-OGANA
23rd – 29th JANUARY 2023
Considered during the 79th Ordinary Session
of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Held in Banjul, The Gambia
from 14 May-3rd June 2024
1
CRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AIDS
AWF
Cap
CHRAGG
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
African Wildlife Foundation
Chapter
The Commission of Human Rights and Good Governance
CSOs
DAS
DCs
DED
Civil Society Organizations
District Administrative Secretary
District Commissioner
District Executive Director
Game Controlled Areas
GCAs
GNI
HIV
LHRC
MP
NCA
NCAA
OPD
RCs
REA
TACAIDS
Gross National Income
Human Immunodeficiency Virus
Legal and Human Rights Center
Member of the Parliament
Ngorongoro Conservation Area
Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority
Outgoing Patient
Regional Commissioner
Rural Energy Agency
TANESCO
Tanzania Commission or AIDS
The Tanzania Electric Supply Company Limited
TARURA
Tanzania Rural and Urban Roads Agency
THRDC
TLS
TOR
UNESCO
URT
Tanzania Human Rights Defenders Coalition
Tanganyika Law Society
Terms of Reference
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
URT
The United Republic of Tanzania
The United Republic of Tanzania
USD
WB
WWF
United States Dollars
The World Bank
World Wildlife Fund
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Commission) expresses its
gratitude to the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania for authorising the
Promotion and Fact-Finding Mission and providing the delegation with the necessary
facilities and personnel to ensure its successful undertaking.
The Commission wishes to specifically extend its appreciation to Honourable Dr Damas
Ndumbaro, MP (the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, and Stragomena Tax,
MP (the Minister for Foreign Affairs and East African Cooperation) as they then were, for
their role in organising and jointly chairing our meeting with various ministries in
Dodoma.
The Commission also thanks the Honourable Dr Tulia Ackson Mwasansu, Member of the
Parliament (MP) (the Speaker of the National Assembly of the United Republic of
Tanzania), for taking the time to meet the delegation at the National Assembly premises
in Dodoma.
The Commission further expresses its gratitude to the Regional administration for
Arusha and Tanga, the former for hosting the delegation during the entire mission and
the latter for showing the delegation around the areas visited in Tanga Region. They
indeed facilitated various meetings, which enabled the delegation to meet a cross-section
of the Maasai Community and CSOs, such as the African Wildlife Foundation, World
Wildlife Fund and Tanzania Human Rights Defenders Coalition.
We also acknowledge the Tanzania National Parks for ground transportation by air and
road. We also thank Ms. Nkasory Sarakikya, the Director of Human Rights at the Ministry
of Constitutional and Legal Affairs, as well as Ms. Elizabeth Bukwimba, a Legal Officer
from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We also thank Professor Malebo, the Executive
Secretary of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
(UNESCO) Tanzania, for assisting the delegation throughout its mission.
The Commission, finally, wishes to thank all non-state actors who met the delegation, to
mention but a few: the Commission for Human Rights and Government (CHRAGG), The
Tanganyika Bar Association (TLS) represented by its leadership of Dodoma Chapter,
independent statutory institutions, non-governmental organisations, including, Pingos
Forum, Pastoral Women’s Council, Pastoral, and individuals who found time to meet
with the delegation.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................. 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................. 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................................................................................... 4
PREFACE ........................................................................................................................................................ 6
PART I: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 13
1.1. The Mandate of the Commission to Conduct Promotion Missions ................................................. 13
1.2. Terms of Reference of the Promotion Mission ................................................................................ 13
1.3. Composition of the Delegation......................................................................................................... 14
1.4. The Commission’s previous engagements with Tanzania ................................................................ 15
1.5. Mission structure .............................................................................................................................. 16
PART II: TANZANIA’S COUNTRY PROFILE AND INFORMATION ................................................................... 18
2.1 Geography, Population, Culture and Economy ................................................................................ 18
2.2 Political Structure ............................................................................................................................. 21
2.3 The Legal System .............................................................................................................................. 22
2.4 Nationalist Ideology and the Notion of ‘Indigenous Peoples’ .......................................................... 23
PART III: THE MISSION’S METHODOLOGY................................................................................................... 25
3.1 Meetings with various stakeholders................................................................................................. 25
3.1.1 Meeting with State Actors ........................................................................................................ 25
3.1.2 Meeting with Civil Society Organizations ................................................................................. 25
3.1.3 Meetings with Representatives of Local Communities ............................................................ 26
3.2 Field Visits and Consultations with Local Communities ................................................................... 26
3.3 Site visits and Consultations with Authorities .................................................................................. 27
3.4 Debriefing Sessions ........................................................................................................................... 28
3.5 Receipt of Documentary Evidence ................................................................................................... 28
PART IV: THE PROMOTION MISSION’S FINDINGS ....................................................................................... 29
4.1 The Promotion Mission..................................................................................................................... 29
4.1.1 Measures to Implement the African Charter ............................................................................ 29
4.1.2 Equality of Peoples.................................................................................................................... 30
4.1.3 Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights ....................................................................................... 30
4.1.4 Women’s Rights ........................................................................................................................ 31
4.1.5 Freedom of Expression ............................................................................................................. 32
4
PART V: THE FACT-FINDING MISSION’S FINDINGS ..................................................................................... 33
4.2 The Fact-Finding Mission .................................................................................................................. 33
4.3 Specific findings ................................................................................................................................ 39
4.3.1 The Contexts of Ngorongoro Conservation Area ...................................................................... 39
4.3.2 Relocation and Demarcation in Loliondo.................................................................................. 42
4.3.3 Resettlement to Msomera Village Handeni-Tanga Region ....................................................... 46
4.3.4 The Situation of Indigenous Populations/ Communities .......................................................... 50
4.4 Concerns ........................................................................................................................................... 52
4.4.1 General Concerns ...................................................................................................................... 52
4.4.2 Specific Concerns ...................................................................................................................... 52
PART VI: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 54
5.1. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 54
5.2. Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 55
5.2.1.
General Recommendations .................................................................................................... 55
5.2.2.
Specific Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 56
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................ 58
Appendix One: Demographic Statistics of the Meetings Conducted ..................................................... 58
Appendix Two: List of Documentary Evidence Evaluated ...................................................................... 60
5
PREFACE
The discussion surrounding the status and human rights of indigenous peoples began to
take shape at the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Commission) in
1999. Since the 29th Ordinary Session in 2001, representatives of indigenous community
have actively participated in the Commission’s Ordinary Sessions to bring attention to
the vulnerability and marginalization faced by indigenous populations in Africa. Their
participation has shed more light on the human rights abuses that indigenous people
face. They strongly request recognition and respect for their rights: civil, political,
economic, social, cultural, and developmental. They also demand the right to live as a
people and to determine their future freely based on their own culture, identity, hopes,
and visions. Indigenous peoples wish to exercise these rights within the institutional
framework applicable to the nation-state to which they belong. The Commission
responded by recognizing that only by promoting and protecting the rights of indigenous
groups can their legitimate concerns be addressed under the framework of the African
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Charter).
To gain a robust understanding of the situation of indigenous peoples in State Parties to
the African Charter, the Commission established a Working Group of Experts on the
Rights of Indigenous or Ethnic Communities in 2000, which was subsequently christened
the Working Group on the Rights of Indigenous Populations/Communities (Working
Group) in 2001. The Working Group undertakes country visits to study the human rights
situation of indigenous peoples/communities and produces a report for the ACHPR. The
special mechanism also organizes sensitization seminars, cooperates with relevant
stakeholders, publishes reports, and shares information for the purpose of promoting and
protecting indigenous peoples’ rights in Africa. The Working Group’s first report, titled
“Report of the African Commission’s Working Group of Experts on Indigenous
Populations/Communities” on the human rights situation of indigenous peoples and
communities in Africa, was adopted by the Commission in November 2003 and
published in book form in 2005. The report is the Commission’s official position on
indigenous peoples’ rights in Africa.
Promotional missions, as this would provide the context within which the mission was
conducted in general and with a specific focus on the Maasai community in Tanzania,
whose matter falls under the Indigenous Communities cluster in the Commission.
This Mission Report on Tanzania is part of a series of country-specific reports produced
by the Working Group to be presented to and adopted by the Commission. The Report is
based on engagement with various stakeholders, including government, National
6
Human Rights Institutions, Civil Society Organizations, development partners,
representatives of indigenous communities, both women and men, and other
stakeholders. The Mission involved a wide variety of relevant stakeholders on
indigenous peoples’ rights to have accurate information about the situation of the
affected indigenous communities in the territory of a State Party concerned. A Mission of
this sort is intended to generate constructive dialogue between the Commission, the
Government of Tanzania, and other interested stakeholders.
This Mission Report aims to raise awareness about the situation of indigenous peoples in
Tanzania and Africa and facilitate dialogue in identifying appropriate ways of addressing
and improving their situation. It is expected that through concerted efforts, the critical
human rights situation of indigenous peoples will be widely recognized, and all
stakeholders will work in collaboration towards promoting and protecting indigenous
peoples’ rights in Africa.
7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights undertook a six-day Promotion
Mission and fact-finding to Tanzania from 23 to 28 January 2023. The Mission was in
response to several reports of the imminent forced eviction of the Maasai people in the
Ngorongoro and Loliondo districts of Tanzania and on the invitation of the Government
of the United Republic of Tanzania. The purpose of the Mission was two-fold:
Firstly, and more specifically, to seek information on and assess the human rights
situation of Indigenous Populations/Communities in Tanzania, including mainly to
review the situation in the Ngorongoro and Loliondo Wilderness Areas.
Secondly, and more generally, to promote human and peoples’ rights in Tanzania
through dialogue and experience sharing, advocating for the ratification of regional and
international human rights instruments, raising awareness of the Commission’s
activities, following up on previous recommendations and resolutions, encouraging
regular participation by the Tanzanian government, and seeking information on specific
human rights issues such as freedom of expression.
The Mission team was led by Honourable Commissioner Geereesha Topsy-Sonoo, the
Country Rapporteur for the United Republic of Tanzania, accompanied by Honourable
Commissioner Dr. Litha Musymi-Ogana, the Chairperson of the Working Group on
Indigenous Populations/Communities and Minorities in Africa, supported by three
professional staff of the Commission’s Secretariat. The Commissioners engaged with
various stakeholders, including government officials, representatives of indigenous
communities, civil society organizations, the media, members of the Tanzanian Bar and
human rights defenders. The objectives of the visit were to examine allegations of forced
evictions of the Maasai people from the Ngorongoro and Loliondo Conservation Areas,
the government’s compliance with its obligations under the African Charter on Human
and Peoples’ Rights and other relevant regional and international human rights
instruments, engage with stakeholders to promote indigenous rights, identify challenges
and opportunities for constructive dialogue, raise awareness about the rights and
concerns of indigenous communities through relevant institutions and the media, and
visit indigenous communities.
8
Findings from the visit revealed that(i)
(ii)
While Tanzania is fostering a national identity that does not allow for the
classification of any group as ‘indigenous’, the Maasai communities in
Ngorongoro and Loliondo are facing a deteriorating situation regarding the
demarcation of land for wildlife sanctuaries.
The relocation of pastoral communities suggests that the government’s approach
to wildlife conservation requires a delicate balancing act between the interests of
the State in conserving its rich wildlife and natural ecosystem and the human and
people’s rights of pastoral communities that live in the wildness. In the context
of the Ngorongoro and Loliondo areas, the uptick in the conservation policies
and relocation programmes of the Government seemed to have invariably placed
pastoral communities such as the Maasai and other pastoral groups deeper into
socio-economic hardship and sometimes involuntarily pitched them against the
evolving national development trajectory, which should not be.
(iii) The Hadzabe, Akiye or Dorobo, Barabaig, and Maasai communities have been
particularly affected, resulting in threats to their cultural and traditional existence
and loss of land known to them as home and land potential to their traditional
ways of life. With ongoing debates and no official recognition in the laws of
Tanzania, the concept of “indigenous” remains problematic for the government
of Tanzania. The official perception of pastoralists seems to be negative, which
extends to the term “indigenous” itself.
(iv) While discouraging the description of people as indigenous in Tanzania, the
government’s position recognize two communities that preceded the Maasai on
the land (that is, the Hadzabe, Datoga), leading to confusion and inconsistency.
The lack of sympathy for the unique circumstances faced by Maasai pastoralists
in Ngorongoro, compounded by the threats of evictions to make room for
supposed wildlife sanctuaries and environmental protection, puts the human
and people’s rights of such communities at risk of abuse. The Maasai community
states that its historical traditional knowledge of conserving nature and
coexisting with wildlife make the mixed-use system the best and most
sustainable model of nature conversation.
(v)
The regulatory framework regarding wildlife management on village lands
remains largely unclear, leading to conflicts and violations of the rights of
villagers. Although there have been positive developments, such as the return of
village land in Loliondo, harsh policies have marginalized pastoralists
9
economically, leading to urban migration and the disintegration and dislocation
of pastoral families and communities.
(vi) The delegation took note of the efforts by the Government towards realizing the
fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution of the United
Republic of Tanzania and those enunciated in the African Charter. The delegation
also acknowledged the instrumentality and progressiveness of various
legislative, institutional, policy, regulatory and budgetary measures that have
been put in place to enhance the promotion and protection of human and
peoples’ rights in the nation in general and pastoral communities in particular.
However, after a careful analysis of the situation of the various affected communities that
the Mission engaged with, the Commission endeavors to put forward several
recommendations for the Tanzanian government’s consideration:
(i)
•
•
•
•
(ii)
Domesticate and observe the provisions of the African Charter on Human and
Peoples’ Rights and other regional human rights legal instruments that Tanzania
has ratified, such as the following;
The African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance
The African Union Convention for The Protection And Assistance of Internally
Displaced Persons in Africa (Kampala Convention)
The Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights
of Older Persons
The Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities in Africa
Ratify the regional and international human rights instruments that have not yet
been ratified, including but not limited to the African Union Convention on the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, the Protocol to the African
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,
the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights
of Older Persons, and the African Convention on Data Protection and Cyber
Security;
(iii) Re-instate the declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol to the African
Charter on the Establishment of the African Court on Human and Peoples’
Rights, which permits individual and NGO access to the African Court on
Human and Peoples’ Rights, which was withdrawn in 2019.
10
(iv) Implement the recommendations which states inter alia that the government
should define who Indigenous People in accordance with the circumstances in
Tanzania subject to the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights given in
the previous Promotion Missions to the United Republic of Tanzania, which was
conducted by the Commission in 2008, as well as the Research and Information
Visit conducted by its Working Group on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples/Communities and Minorities, in 2013 in as far as indigenous peoples’
rights are concerned as a matter of fulfilling its state obligation and protecting
human rights.
(v)
Submit outstanding since 2008 Periodic Reports under Article 62 of the African
Charter and participate regularly in the activities of the Commission, including
attending sessions and programmes of the Commission and
(vi) Put in place adequate mechanisms for ensuring the protection of Human Rights
Defenders from attacks, including by conducting prompt investigations into
reported attacks and guaranteeing access to justice.
Regarding the situation of pastoralists, indigenous populations and communities, the
Delegation urges the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania –
(i)
To advance, considering several communities call for inclusive and conclusive
consultations, explore fresh rounds of civil dialogues with the respective pastoral
and farming communities in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Loliondo and
Msomera, peaceful resolutions of individual and group grievances in the
implementation of the Government’s conservation efforts in the Ngorongoro
Conservation Area and Loliondo as documented, giving effect to the assurance
given to the Maasai Community over their home in Ngorongoro.
(ii)
To ensure the inclusive, effective, and rigorous participation of local and affected
communities, including the women and youth, in all conservation programs and
processes initiated by the Government in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area and
Loliondo;
(iii) To provide adequate information and timely assistance to pastoralists in the
Ngorongoro Conservation Area who have signed up for voluntary relocation
while managing the compensation package to eliminate disparities, ensure their
adequate and effective compensation in line with the African Charter on Human
and Peoples’ Rights and
11
(iv) To address the complaints about the decline in social amenities and infrastructure
in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area and ensure continued dignified living
conditions for the affected communities whilst awaiting the relocation of those
who have volunteered to be relocated, and to provide for enough amenities to
those who have elected to stay behind, and not to shut down all facilities such as health
services and education services so that effectively these communities are forced to leave
in respect of which latter group the Government should reach a mutually acceptable
strategy with the affected people.
12
PART I: INTRODUCTION
1.1. The Mandate of the Commission to Conduct Promotion Missions
1. The promotion of human rights is a vital function of the African Commission on
Human and Peoples’ Rights (Commission).1 The Commission fulfills this mandate
by collecting documents, undertaking studies and research on African problems in
the field of human and peoples’ rights, organizing seminars, symposia and
conferences, disseminating information, encouraging national and local institutions
concerned with human and peoples’ rights, and, giving its views or making
recommendations to governments. As such, promotion missions are influential and
instrumental to achieving these human rights responsibilities of the Commission.2
2. Promotion Missions are done either when the Commission is invited to do so by a
Member State or when the Commission considers that due to the deteriorating
human rights situations of a particular state, it is necessary to do so. Such Missions
are ultimately subject to authorization by the Member State concerned.3
3.
The Mission to the United Republic of Tanzania was undertaken within the context
of the promotion mandate of the African Commission upon the authorization by
the Government through its Note Verbale dated 18th January 2023.
4.
The United Republic of Tanzania is a State Party to the African Charter on Human
and Peoples’ Rights (African Charter). Tanzania signed the African Charter on 31
May 1982 and ratified it on 18 February 1984.4
1.2. Terms of Reference of the Promotion Mission
(a) The Terms of Reference (TOR) of the Mission to Tanzania were both general
and specific. First, the mission was explicitly intended to seek information on
and
assess
the
situation
of
human
rights
of
Indigenous
Populations/Communities in Tanzania, including particularly to review the
situation in the Loliondo Wilderness Area and Ngorongoro Park in Tanzania
and
(b) Second, the general objective of the Mission was as follows:
1 See, Article 45 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights read together with Rules 76 and 77
of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure 2020
2 Promotion is imposed with imperative term “Shall” under article 45(1) of the African Charter
3 Rules 76 and 77 of the Rules of Procedure, 2020
4See,
African
Charter
on
Human
and
Peoples'
Rights,
available
https://achpr.au.int/en/charter/african-charter-human-and-peoples-rights (accessed 16 May 2023)
13
at
i.
To promote the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the African
Charter) and other regional human rights legal instruments through the
exchange of views and sharing of experiences with the Government of
Tanzania and some of the main stakeholders working in the field of human
rights, on strategies to improve the enjoyment of human rights in the
country;
ii. To advocate for the ratification of regional and international human rights
legal instruments that Tanzania has not ratified;
iii. To raise awareness of the activities of the Commission, especially among
the relevant Government departments and civil society organizations
(CSOs);
iv. To follow up on recommendations given in the Promotion Mission to the
United Republic of Tanzania, which was conducted by the Commission in
2008;
v. To follow up on the implementation of Resolutions and Press Releases
which the Commission has issued with regard to the United Republic of
Tanzania;
vi. To encourage the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania to submit
outstanding Periodic Reports and to participate regularly in the activities of
the Commission, including attending sessions of the Commission and
vii. To seek information on thematic human rights issues of particular concern
to the Commissioners undertaking the mission, including freedom of
expression and access to information and the rights of persons living with
or affected by HIV/AIDS in Tanzania.
1.3. Composition of the Delegation
5.
The Commission’s Delegation for the Mission was comprised of:
i.
Honourable Commissioner Ourveena Geereesha Topsy-Sonoo, Commissioner
Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the United Republic of Tanzania
and the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to
Information in Africa as Head of the Mission; and
ii. Honourable Commissioner Dr Litha Musyimi-Ogana, the Chairperson of the
14
Working Group on Indigenous Populations/Communities and Minorities in
Africa (who also doubles as Chairperson of the Committee on the Protection
of the Rights of People Living with HIV and those at Risk, Vulnerable to and
Affected by HIV).
6. The delegation was assisted by the following Staff of the Commission’s Secretariat:
Ms Abiola Idowu-Ojo, Senior Legal Officer; Dr Chairman Okoloise, Senior Legal
Expert; and Dr Francis M. Magare, Legal Researcher.
1.4. The Commission’s previous engagements with Tanzania
(a) Periodic Reports
7. Aligning with the Commission’s mandate to monitor human rights and the States’
Obligation to submit periodic reports,5 Tanzania submitted two reports as follows:
i.
Tanzania’s first report was on 9 March 1992, covering 1984 to 1992. This report
was considered, and the Commission published its Concluding Observations
during the 11th Ordinary Session of the Commission held from 2-9 March 1992
in Tunis, Tunisia.
ii. The second report was submitted on 22 May 2008 and covering 1992 to 2006.
The Commission gave its Concluding Observations during the 43rd Ordinary
Session held from 7 to 22 May 2008 in Ezulwini, Eswatini.
iii. In paragraph 37 of the Concluding Observations on Tanzania’s Second
Report, the Commission noted that Tanzania should:
“Formulate a definition of indigenous peoples that accommodates
Tanzania’s circumstances and is consistent with the provisions and
principles of the African Charter.6
iv. To date, there is no indication that Tanzania has implemented this
observation, as Tanzania is in default on its periodic reports by seven reports.
(b) Research and Information Visit 2013
8. From 21 January to 6 February 2013, the Commission, through its Working Group
on Indigenous Populations/Communities and Minorities in Africa, conducted a
research and information visit to Tanzania. It highlighted, in its reports, the
5 See, article 62 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights
6 African Commission “Concluding Observations And Recommendations - Tanzania: 2nd To 10th Periodic
Report, 1992-2006” https://www.achpr.org/sessions/concludingobservation?id=73.
15
situation of indigenous communities in the country, the socio-economic challenges
and land-related issues they face and recommended the improvement of the living
conditions and well-being of indigenous peoples.
(c) Letters of Urgent Appeals
9.
The
Commission,
through
the
Working
Group
on
Indigenous
Populations/Communities and Minorities in Africa, in response to allegations of
severe violations of the human rights of Indigenous peoples, sent to the Heads of
State of Tanzania on 22 February 202, September 2017, April 2015, September 2010,
and 2 August 2009, letters of urgent appeal calling on the Government to take the
necessary measures to address alleged violations of the human rights of indigenous
peoples and to find satisfactory and lasting solutions to indigenous peoples’ issues
in Tanzania.
(d) Press Releases on the Evictions of Indigenous Maasai Communities
10. Based on reports received on escalating human rights issues along with the eviction
of the Maasai people from Ngorongoro Conservation and Loliondo areas, the
Commission, through the Chairperson of the Working Group on Indigenous
Populations/Communities and Minorities in Africa, did issue a Press Statement on
13 June 2022 calling for a cessation of the eviction of the Maasai Community from
their ancestral lands.
11. In the aftermath of the press Statements of 22 February 2022 and 13 June 2022, the
Tanzanian Government responded during the occasion of the 73rd Ordinary Session
of the Commission and invited the Commission to undertake the Promotion
Mission.
1.5. Mission structure
12. The Mission was undertaken for six days from 23 to 28 January 2023. The Mission
structure was designed based on ample consultations with the Government, the
Commission for Human Rights and Good Governance, and civil society
organisations (CSOs) respectively. Based on the background from which this
mission was undertaken, it took consultative and fact-finding/verification
approaches. The delegation visited various areas and met local communities (in
structured and non-structured meetings). The delegation met with government
officials at the start and end of the mission for debriefing. It also received various
documentary evidence during and after the mission.
16
13. Based on this Mission structure, the delegation had an opportunity to meet and
interact with a cross-section of relevant stakeholders from both state and non-state
sectors. (See Appendix 1 for the listing of the people met and the meetings during
the mission).
17
PART II: TANZANIA’S COUNTRY PROFILE AND INFORMATION
2.1 Geography, Population, Culture and Economy
14. Tanzania is in East Africa. To the north are Kenya and Uganda; to the west, Burundi,
Rwanda, and Congo; and to the south, Mozambique, Zambia, and Malawi. Tanzania
shares three of Africa’s best-known lakes—Victoria in the north, Tanganyika in the
west, and Nyasa in the south. Mount Kilimanjaro
in the north, 19,340 ft (5,895 m), is the highest
point on the continent. The island of Zanzibar is
separated from the mainland by a 22-mile
channel.7
15. Administratively, the mainland of Tanzania is
divided into 26 regions and Zanzibar into five
regions. Each region is subdivided into districts.
To estimate geographic differentials for specific
demographic
characteristics,
this
report
collapsed the administrative regions of mainland
Tanzania into six ecological/geographical zones, namely, the Coastal Zone formed
of Tanga, Morogoro, Coast, Dar es Salaam, and Zanzibar; the Northern Highland
Zone formed of Arusha, Kilimanjaro and Manyara; the Lake Zone formed of
Tabora, Kigoma, Shinyanga, Simiyi, Kagera, Mwanza, and Mara; the Central Zone,
formed of Dodoma and Singida; the Southern Highland Zone, formed of Iringa,
Mbeya, Njombe, Songwe and Rukwa; and the Southern Zone formed of Lindi,
Mtwara, and Ruvuma.
16. Relevant to the objectives of this Mission, the Arusha Region is made up of six
Districts, of which the Ngorongoro District is one.8 The district was established in
1979 and is subdivided into three Divisions: Ngorongoro, Sale and Loliondo. The
Headquarters of Ngorongoro District is in Loliondo-Wasso Town in the Loliondo
Division. The district is bordered by Kenya to the North, Serengeti District to the
West, Meatu District to the Southwest, Monduli and Longido Districts to the East
and Karatu District to the South.9
7 http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0861437.html (last accessed on 16.05.2023)
The United Republic of Tanzania President Office Regional Administration and Local Government
“Arusha Regional” https://arusha.go.tz/monduli/historia# (accessed 18 January 2023).
9 The United Republic of Tanzania President Office Regional Administration and Local Government
“Historia” https://arusha.go.tz/ngorongoro/historia (accessed 18 January 2023)
8
18
17. In terms of population, as of October 2022, Tanzania’s population was 61,741,120.10
Of this number, 59,851,347 live on the mainland, and 1,889,773 live on the Zanzibar
islands. Further to this, 51%, equivalent to 30,713,709, of the population are women,
and 29,137,638, equivalent to 49%, are men. The population distribution in urban
and rural areas is also
telling. While 20,618,348
people live in urban
areas, 39,232,999 live in
rural areas in mainland
Tanzania, with more
women living in urban
areas than males at the
ratio of 9,890,218 males
in urban areas to
10,728,130 women.11
18. In Zanzibar, just like
mainland Tanzania, the
distribution
of
the
population in rural and
urban areas is about
482,814
females
as
opposed to 443,461
males. In rural areas, the
ratio of distribution is
491,467
females
to
472,031 males. Overall, a vast majority of Tanzania’s population, equivalent to 5.38
million people, live in Dar es Salaam. Mwanza follows the Dar es Salaam population
with 3.69 million people.
19. In terms of religious distribution, Christianity and Islam remain the major religions
professed. However, the numerical relationship between followers of the two
religions is regarded as politically sensitive, and questions about religious affiliation
have not been included in census questionnaires since 1967. For many years,
estimates have been repeated that about a third of the population follows Islam,
Christianity, and traditional religions.
10 See, Tanzania Bureau of Statistics data available at https://sensa.nbs.go.tz/ (Accessed on 16 May 2023)
11 ibid
19
20. With around 129 different ethnic groups, the Republic of Tanzania has evolved one
of the most remarkable linguistic diversities on the African continent with four
major African language bases, ranging from Bantu, Cushitic, and Nilotic languages
to the less comprehensively spoken Khoisan. One of the founding directives of
independent Tanzania was that no ethnic group should dominate, and this was
made more accessible by the fact that none of the 129 tribes and sub-tribes exceeds
much more than 10% of the country’s overall population. A governmental drive
continues to reduce tribal differentiation by promoting Swahili as the national
language. Swahili is the most widely spoken language, with English being largely
absent from rural Tanzania and only really spoken in the larger towns, cities, and
tourist areas. With such a diversity of people contained within the boundaries of
Tanzania, having Swahili as a national language has brought about the country’s
strong sense of national identity.
21. The currency in Tanzania is the Shilling. As of 20 January 2023, the Dollar to
Tanzanian Shilling Exchange Rate was 1 USD to TZS = 2335.9582.
Between 2011 and 2020, Tanzania’s economy sustained an average GDP growth rate
of around 6.9 percent. Agriculture is still the largest and most important economic
sector in Mainland Tanzania and the source of livelihood for over 65 percent of the
population. However, the key drivers of the country’s economic expansion include
the extractive sector, infrastructure, telecommunications, financial services,
tourism, and construction. This provides evidence that the economy is gradually
transforming away from its over-dependence on agriculture. The steady economic
growth has resulted in an increase in the country’s per capita income from GNI Per
Capita of US$ 770 in 2011 to US$ 1,018 in 2019. As a result of this increase, in July
2020, the World Bank (WB) officially declared Tanzania as a lower middle-income
country after surpassing the minimum threshold for lower middle-income
classification (GNI Per Capita of US$ 1,036).
22. In the past ten years, Tanzania has managed to reduce poverty among its
population. The incidence of basic needs poverty has declined from 34.4 percent
(2007) to 26.4 percent (2017/18). The incidence of food poverty has also declined
from 11.8 percent (2007) to 8.0 percent (2017/18). The progress shown in the overall
declining trend of poverty incidence is a result of continued efforts by the
Government to improve living conditions, invest in social welfare, and promote
critical human development outcomes. However, the rates of poverty in rural areas
continue to be high compared to urban areas.
20
23. Access to essential services and productive assets, such as increased access to
electricity, markets, water, health, and education, as well as improved road
infrastructure, are behind the progress made in human development.
2.2 Political Structure
24. The United Republic of Tanzania (URT) was founded on 26 April 1964 as a Union
between two sovereign states, the then Tanganyika (now Mainland Tanzania) and
the People’s Republic of Zanzibar. Tanzania is a constitutional democracy. The
Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, 1977 (the Constitution) is the
supreme law of the land. The High Court of Tanzania is the guardian of the
Constitution, although the Court of Appeal remains the highest Court of Record.
The Constitution provides for the rule of law, separation of powers, and principles
of human dignity, equality and the achievement of human rights and freedoms.
25. Tanzania is governed based on the principle of cooperative governance. The
Constitution provides for the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary as organs of the
State. Each Organ of the State is expected to exercise their powers and perform their
functions in a manner that does not infringe on the functional or institutional
integrity of government. Since its independence in 1961, it has had a peaceful
transition of leadership from Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere, Ali Hassan
Mwinyi, Benjamin Mkapa, Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete, John Magufuli and currently,
HE. Samia Suluhu Hassan. It has gone from monopartism until 1995 and from there
to date with Chama cha Mapinduzi (CCM) being the ruling party.
26. At the national level, the Executive Organ consists of the President, the Deputy
President, the President of Zanzibar, the ‘Prime Minister and the Ministers
responsible for various ministries (the Cabinet). At the local level, all 32 regions have
Regional Commissioners, and the districts have District Commissioners. Alongside
these, the local governments are also formed into Urban Authorities and
Regional/District authorities depending on various factors.
27. The Parliament (the national legislative body) is formed by the National Assembly
and the President when assenting laws into effect. The National Assembly is
responsible for the passing of legislation nationally. In specific cases, local
government authorities of respective manifestation can also make by-laws to deal
with matters affecting their localities.
21
28. Tanzania is a member state of Regional Economic Communities such as the East
African Community, Southern African Development Corporation, and the Great
Lakes. It is the headquarters for the Esat African Community and hosts the African
Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights
2.3
The Legal System
29. Tanzania follows the Common law legal system in combination with its legislation,
case law, and Islamic and customary law. The Constitution remain the supreme law
of the land. Any act done contrary to it is rendered null and void to the extent of
infringement with the Constitution.
30. Tanzania is a party to several regional and international instruments on human
rights. Even though, in the realm of the African Union level, Tanzania is yet to ratify
the Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in
Africa (the Kampala Convention), the Protocol to the African Charter on Human
and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Older Persons or the Protocol to the African
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
However, Tanzania is a State Party to the Protocol to the African Charter on Human
and Peoples’ Rights. Establishing the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights
and hosting the Headquarters of the African Court, it withdrew the declaration
made under Article 34(6), which allows individuals and NGOs with Observer Status
direct access to the Court.
31. At the United Nations level, Tanzania has ratified or acceded to several human
rights instruments.12 Relevant to indigenous people and minorities, she has not
ratified the International Labour Organisation Indigenous and Tribal Peoples
Convention 1989 (No. 169).
32. Tanzania is a dualist State and must first enact domestic legislation to give an
international treaty or rule domestic application before it can become enforceable
before domestic courts. Therefore, international law does not apply directly.
33. The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary, subject only to the
Constitution and the law, which they must apply impartially and without fear,
favour or prejudice. While the Court of Appeal is the Union Matter, the High Court
12
United Nations “Universal Periodic Review”https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/upr/tz-index (accessed 20
January 2023).
22
of Tanzania and that of Zanzibar have concurrent Jurisdiction. The system of Court
is made up of the Court of Appeal, High Court, and Magistrates Courts. There are
several quasi/administrative tribunals serving in sectoral matters.
2.4 Nationalist Ideology and the Notion of ‘Indigenous Peoples’
34. Tanzania stands out as a country that has endeavoured, with notable success, to
cultivate a unified nationalist ideology transcending its diverse tapestry of over 130
distinct ethnic groups. This remarkable achievement has earned Tanzania the
admiration of neighbouring countries and, indeed, the entire continent. From the
very inception of its independence on 9 December 1961, the visionary leaders of
Tanzania dedicated themselves to fostering unity and nationalism while actively
discouraging the pernicious spectre of negative ethnicity that has plagued many
other countries. Their efforts have been underpinned by two key strategies: the
adoption of Swahili as a national language and the cultivation of a shared national
culture.
35. Swahili, spoken extensively across Tanzania, has played a pivotal role in forging a
sense of shared identity. Rather than referring to people by their specific ethnic
backgrounds, Tanzanians often employ regional identifiers, such as “people from
the south” or “people from the Lake Zone,” in everyday conversation. While there
is a general awareness of the various ethnic communities residing in these regions,
individuals are either unable or unwilling to pinpoint a person’s precise ethnic
heritage. This generalized approach to ethnic origins effectively suppresses
negative ethnicity and fosters a collective national identity.
36. Notably, over the years, communities in Tanzania have largely transcended
concerns about ethnic origins. Intermarriage has become widespread throughout
the country, contributing significantly to the erosion of ethnic distinctions,
particularly among younger generations. Consequently, there is a general rejection
of the existence of tribalism in the country and an acknowledgement of the
harmonious mosaic of Tanzania’s societal fabric. However, this harmonious,
tribally blind image begins to fray when examining the experiences of particular
groups within Tanzanian society.
37. Indigenous peoples, specifically pastoralists and hunter-gatherers, are often
perceived as distinct from the broader Tanzanian identity. During our interactions
with various individuals during our visit, it became apparent that many Tanzanians
identify pastoralists and hunter-gatherers as “different” in some way. This nuance
23
highlights the complex interplay between unity and diversity within Tanzania,
demonstrating that while the nation has largely succeeded in forging a united front,
challenges persist in recognizing the unique experiences and contributions of
marginalized indigenous communities that live on the periphery of Tanzanian
society.
24
PART III: THE MISSION’S METHODOLOGY
3.1 Meetings with various stakeholders
3.1.1 Meeting with State Actors
38. The delegation met the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Minister for
Constitutional and Legal Affairs, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and East African
Cooperation, the Minister for Natural Resources and Tourism, the Minister for
Land, the Deputy Minister for Land, the Deputy Minister for Culture, Arts and
Sports in Dodoma, the Government Capital. While the delegation met with the
Honourable Speaker at her office situated in the National Assembly complex, the
delegation held a joint meeting with the ministers at the premises of the National
Assembly. The purpose of the meeting was to engage senior government officials
and policymakers on the plight of indigenous communities in Ngorongoro and
Loliondo and the imperative for Tanzania to act in accordance with its human and
peoples’ rights obligations under the African Charter and other relevant regional
and international human rights instruments.
39. At the local levels, the delegation met the Regional Commissioners (RCs) for Arusha
and Tanga, the District Commissioners (DCs) for Ngorongoro and Handeni, the
Msomera Settlement Team led by the District Executive Director for Handeni
(DED), the Regional Administrative Secretary Arusha (DAS), the Conservation
Commissioners and the team of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority
(NCAA), and the Ngorongoro Relocation Programme Committee Members,
respectively. The various meetings with these categories of government officials
featured presentations on the history of land legislation in Tanzania, the
categorization of reserve land and wildlife conservation, the participation of the
Maasai in government, the situation of pastoral communities, and the need to
balance between natural and cultural resource conservation, community
development programmes and the development of Tanzania’s tourism potential.
40. The delegation also met the Executive Secretary to the National Commission for
UNESCO and the Tanzania Commission for AIDS (TACAIDS).
3.1.2 Meeting with Civil Society Organizations
41. A segment of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) was availed to the Delegation. This
included the Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC) Representative in Arusha),
the Tanzania National Coordinator for the Human Rights Defenders Coalition
(THRDC), the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and the African Wildlife Foundation
25
(AWF). A group of other Civil Society Organizations operating in the Loliondo and
Ngorongoro areas with the Maasai Pastoralists organized a side meeting in Arusha,
which the members of the delegation also met.
3.1.3 Meetings with Representatives of Local Communities
42. The Delegation met the representatives of the Local Communities in the meetings
set by the Government, as well as representatives in meetings organized by the
CSOs operating in Loliondo and Ngorongoro. The justification for having a dual set
of meetings was to have a fair and balanced view of the facts.
43. The delegation met with the representatives of the local Maasi Community from
Loliondo, mainly from Ololosokwan and Sale (the group which it could not meet
while on a field visit due to logistical and geographic challenges). This meeting was
organized on the premises of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights in
the Arusha Region. In this meeting, the delegation was briefed on the contexts of
the relocation programme in Ngorongoro and issues arising from the land
boundary in Loliondo.
3.2 Field Visits and Consultations with Local Communities
44. The delegation undertook field visits to Ngorongoro, Loliondo and Msomera
Village in order to get a deeper understanding of the human rights concerns raised
by the affected Maasai communities. The delegation visited –
(a) Ngorongoro, where the Community is alleging that they are being
forcefully relocated to Msomera;
(b) Loliondo, where it was alleged that the demarcation beacons separating the
restricted 1,500 km2 reserve corridor from the 2,500 km2 multiple-use Game
Controlled Area allocated to the local pastoral communities led to the
expulsion of the Maasai Pastoral Communities from their villages and
grazing lands. Due to logistical challenges, the delegation did not visit the
affected villages, the Osokwan being among them, but did receive the
community representatives, as stated above, and
(c) Msomera Village in Handeni District Tanga Region, where the Community
in Ngorongoro is being permanently relocated.
45. During the field visits, several meetings were convened with the affected
communities. For example, a meeting was conducted at the Headquarters of the
Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority. At this meeting, the delegation met with
26
a segment of representatives of the local community who were willing and already
registered to relocate to Msomera in the Tanga Region from the Ngorongoro
Conservation Area.
46. A meeting was also convened at Mokilal in Ngorongoro with some members of the
Community who needed to agree to relocate to Msomera. This group cited various
reasons for their unwillingness to relocate. This includes that the Ngorongoro is the
ancestral land. While in Loliondo, another meeting was convened at the office of the
District Commissioner Loliondo, with a segment of participants from community
representatives and the CSO operating in the area.
47. The delegation also met community members in unstructured meetings while in the
field. For instance, while in Ngorongoro, they meet community members in
Nainokahoka village and primary school, as well as Mokilal. The same applied
while in Msomera, where the delegation met various groups of local communities
already living in Msomera and those who were relocated to Msomera from
Ngorongoro Conservation Area, with which it interacted.
3.3 Site visits and Consultations with Authorities
48. The delegation, while in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, visited the headquarters
of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority (NCAA), where it met and discussed
with relevant officials of the NCAA. In Loliondo, the delegation visited the office of the
District Commissioner in Wasso, meeting with relevant officials as well as some invited
members of the pastoral community from Loliondo.
49. It also visited the demarcated Game Controlled Area of 4,000 km2 in Loliondo through
aerial inspection to get a vivid picture of the land demarcation into a 1,500 km2
restricted conservation corridor, which the Government has earmarked for wildebeest
migration, breeding and protection of the eco-system, and the 2,500 km2 for the use of
the local communities; and The site of the demarcation beacons separating the restricted
1,500 km2 corridor from the 2,500 km2 multiple-use Game Controlled Area allocated to
the local pastoral communities, which the delegation also got a view of.
50. The delegation also visited the site of infrastructure projects, including the newly
constructed Primary and Secondary Schools in Msomera, the water pilot project, the
Health Centre, and the dispensary construction projects and got a view of the road
construction in the area, having received briefings from the Handeni District
Executive Director, (the team leader of the reception of the team from Ngorongoro.
27
3.4 Debriefing Sessions
51. At the closure of the field visits, the delegation had two debriefing sessions at the
Government Capital in Dodoma. The first was done with the Speaker of the
National Assembly, Hon. Dr Tulia Ackson Mwansansu, MP, and the other one was
a joint meeting Co-chaired by the Minister for Constitutional Affairs and the
Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperations.’
3.5 Receipt of Documentary Evidence
52. Due to time, geographic and logistical constraints at the time of the Mission, the
Delegation requested documentary evidence and submissions from relevant
stakeholders in order to furnish the Mission with pieces of information which were
not immediately at the disposal of state officials. It subsequently received these from
the government and the written submission from the Commission of Huma Rights
and Good Government (CHRAGG).
53. The delegation also, during the mission, received documents from the communities’
representatives and CSOs working in Pastoral communities in Loliondo and
Ngorongoro, describing various issues of interest to the delimitation of the
boundaries and the engagements had with the government.
28
PART IV: THE PROMOTION MISSION’S FINDINGS
4.1 The Promotion Mission
4.1.1 Measures to Implement the African Charter
54. The delegation was informed of legislative measures with several laws in place to
implement human rights. In particular, the Delegation learned that the Constitution
of the United Republic of Tanzania, 1977 and the Constitution of Zanzibar, 1984,
incorporate the Bill of Rights and enable Tanzanian courts to translate international
and regional instruments into domestic laws and obligate all branches of
government to respect and ensure the enjoyment of human rights. For the
justiciability of human rights, the delegation was informed of the Basic Rights and
Duties Enforcement Act Cap 3, which provides for procedures to enforce rights. The
delegation also learned of the Penal Code Cap 16, Criminal Procedure Act Cap 20,
and National Prosecutions Service Act Cap 430, which protect the rights of suspects
or accused persons, provide duties, and ensure access to justice or otherwise
guarantee the right to due process of law.
55. Other legislations that implement the human rights that the delegation was
informed of include the Media Service Act of 2016, The Cybercrimes Act of 2015,
The Electronic and Postal Communications Act Cap 306, and The Electronic and
Postal Communications (Online Content) Regulations of 2020 which regulate and
guarantee freedom of speech and the right to information; the Land Act Cap 113
and Village Land Act Cap 114 which regulate right to land as property; the
Employment and Labour Relations Act Cap 366 that govern right to work and
employment rights; the Public Health Act, 2009 which regulates health rights; and
the Education Act, Universities Education Act, The Adult Education Act, Teachers
Service Commission Act which regulate right to education.
56. In addition, the delegation learned of the Environmental Management Act of 1983
and Water Resources Management Act of 2009, which regulate the right to a safe
and clean environment and water; the Persons with Disabilities Act of 2010
promotes and protects the rights and dignity of people with disabilities; and Law of
the Child Act 2009 that provides for rights of the child and to promote, protect and
maintain the welfare of the children.
57. Apart from the legislative measures taken, the delegation was informed of the
various institutions in place to work in implementations of the provisions of the
African Charter, including the Ministry responsible for Gender, Women, People
29
with Disabilities, Children and Elderly People; Ministries responsible for
Environment, Land, Constitutions and Legal Affairs; other mechanisms including;
CHRAGG, Justice Sector (Judiciary, Police, Prison, Attorney General, National
Prosecution Services, Office of Solicitor General), Parliament and CSOs. The
delegation was also informed, and it took note of the work of the Commission for
Human Rights and Good Governance (CHRAGG) in the promotion and protection
of human and peoples’ rights in Tanzania, including in ensuring Tanzania’s
compliance with the African and United Nations human rights instruments to
which Tanzania is a State Party. It was also informed of the efforts of the
Government of Tanzania through the Ministry of Constitutional and Legal Affairs
and other key relevant ministries, towards applying international human rights
considerations in the relocation of local pastoral communities from the Ngorongoro
Conservation Area in the Ngorongoro District to Msomera Village in the Handeni
District of Tanga; and
58. It welcomes the efforts of the Government of Tanzania towards protecting the rights
to life, dignity and security of the local pastoral communities impacted by the
indicated cases of wildlife-human conflicts in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area
and Loliondo.
4.1.2 Equality of Peoples
59. The delegation was informed of the guarantee of the right to equality, including the
equal protection of the law from the constitutional setup of the country. As one
aspect thereof, the delegation was shown in the government’s efforts to eradicate
tribalism and ethnicity in Tanzania. The Government informed it of the efforts it
takes to promote a national identity for the people of Tanzania, which ensures the
equal treatment of all. Also, as an aspect to cherish the equality of all people, the
delegation was informed of various government efforts to consult the people in
decision-making in the cases that affect them. For instance, in the case at hand
regarding the local pastoral communities of Ngorongoro and Loliondo, before
relocating them to Msomera, even though it was contested not to be sufficient, the
delegation received information about the government consultations with the
people.
4.1.3 Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights
60. The delegation was informed of the legislative, policy, institutional and budgetary
measures that have been put in place for providing equal opportunities to all
Tanzanians in addressing the challenges of socio-economic inequality,
30
unemployment and poverty affecting them. In particular, it noted the initiatives for
improving access to electricity, proper housing, healthcare and primary as well as
secondary education, especially among pastoral communities who relocated to
Msomera Village. However, as earlier noted, in some instances in the Ngorongoro
Conservation Area, the delegation, in the interaction with the local communities,
did note some cases in which the segment of the Maasai community who opted not
to relocate to Msomera complained about the reduction of provision of social
services on what they translated as to induce them to relocate from the area.
61. Relevant to cultural rights and traditional practices, the delegation was also
informed of the efforts of the government to recognize the cultural and social beliefs
of its people. It notes this, in particular, from the government response to the
concern raised by the pastoralists that when moved to Msomera, they will be limited
in their ability to practice their pastoralist way of life and religious rituals as the new
land which they have been given is mainly for agricultural purposes. In the
government response, the delegation noted that the places were designated for the
conduct of cultural beliefs and rituals. The delegation was informed while in
Msomera village that, indeed, they practice their traditions without impediments
and that the traditional leaders (Laigwanani), who are the custodians and sources for
transmission of the Maasai culture and traditions, including pastoralist culture,
have also in their capacity, voluntarily relocated to Msomera and as such their
culture will be maintained.;’
62. The delegation was also informed of the Culture Policy of 1997, which provides that
Kiswahili is the national language of the nation. Still, the vernacular languages shall
continue to be used, and the Tanzanians shall be proud of their vernacular
languages. It notes, in particular, the position that Public and private organizations
are encouraged to publish and disseminate materials in vernacular languages.
4.1.4 Women’s Rights
63. The delegation appreciates the legal and policy recognition of the gendered nature
of inequalities facing various sections of society, and it Commends the various
initiatives for promoting gender equality and gender justice in the political,
administrative, economic, social, and cultural realms. Despite the promotion of
gender equality and engendered policies, the delegation observed poor
representation of women in most of the meetings and consultations held during the
mission
31
4.1.5 Freedom of Expression
64. The delegation was informed of the accountability measures in place to ensure that
the authority regulating communications works harmoniously with journalists and
media houses, especially on what was recorded that the Government was to be
something inborn from the Constitutional setup and the obligation under regional
treaties. It appreciates several measures that have been put in place to ensure the
authority regulating communications works harmoniously with journalists, such as
the professional meeting between the Government and journalists on the ethics of
reporting as well as the inclusive training between the Authority regulating
communications. Despite these efforts, reasonably associated with the subject of the
mission, the delegation noted several concerns of restriction of the civic space,
characterized by the arrest and detention of journalists on trumpeted charges.
32
PART V: THE FACT-FINDING MISSION’S FINDINGS
4.2 The Fact-Finding Mission
65. The delegation noted that in Tanzania, communities, including the Barabaig,
Ilparakuyio, and the Maasai, predominantly rely on pastoralism for over 90% of
their livelihoods.13 The Maasai, further divided into three slightly distinct groups –
the Maasai, Ilparakuyo, and Wa-Arusha – have a significant presence in the
Ngorongoro landscape, with the latter 33racticing agro-pastoralism. It also learned
that over the years, Tanzania's pastoralists have grappled with the fundamental
human rights challenge of securing ownership, habitation, and utilization of their
ancestral lands. These rights, integral to their way of life, have consistently faced
encroachments, violations, and forceful acquisitions by various interests and
authorities.14
66. In particular, the delegation noted that historically and persistently, pastoralist
communities in Tanzania have endured political, social, and economic
marginalisation. This marginalisation results from a complex interplay of factors.
Firstly, government policies and their enforcement have restricted the mobility of
pastoralists across extensive areas, thus denying them access to crucial rangeland
resources. Secondly, inadequate support and services from local governments have
further exacerbated their predicament. Lastly, the vulnerabilities within pastoralist
organizations have limited their capacity to advocate for their communities
effectively and demand improved conditions and services.
67. The delegation noted further that the legacy of colonial and post-colonial policies
and laws has led to the displacement and eviction of pastoralists to make way for
alternative land use systems. Many of these policies are rooted in the belief that
pastoralism is an inefficient use of land, driving its replacement by conservation
efforts, various forms of farming, and investment projects.15 Small-scale farmers
encroach upon pastoralist lands, sparking land conflicts that deepen the crisis.
These policies, coupled with institutional bias and a need for more enforcement of
13
H De Jode & C Hesse ‘Strengthening voices: How pastoralist communities and local government are shaping
strategies for adaptive environmental management and poverty reduction in Tanzania’s drylands’ (2011)
https://www.iied.org/g03105 (accessed 14 August 2023).
14
R Tenga, A Mattee, N Mdoe, R Mnenwa, S Mvungi & Martin Walsh ‘A study on options for pastoralists to secure
their livelihoods in Tanzania: Current policy, legal and economic issues’ (2008) 30 https://www.tnrf.org/files/EINFO-RLTF_VOL1_MAINREPORT_A_Study_on_options_for_pastoralism_to_secure_their_livelihoods_in_Tanzania_2008.pdf (accessed 16
August 2023).
15
This sentiment was also voiced during the Mission of the African Commission
33
relevant laws, have eroded the resource base upon which pastoralists depend for
their livelihoods. The absence of access to productive resources and services,
including livestock extension, healthcare, markets, and infrastructure, has resulted
in substandard living conditions, meagre incomes, inadequate healthcare, and
limited educational opportunities. These hardships have progressively undermined
the viability and sustainability of pastoralism, exacerbating social marginalization
and exclusion from political processes, including decision-making structures.
68. The delegation noted a negative stance toward pastoralists who identify themselves
as "indigenous" within the country. The Government despite being resistant to the
term, recognizes only three communities as original settlers or indigenous: the
Hadzabe, Barabaig, and 'Ndorobo,' or Akiye, all of whom are huntergatherers.16The rationale behind this recognition centres on these communities
adhering to their "traditional" lifestyles through hunting and that they originated in
those places’ way back before the invasion by the Maasai. Nevertheless, there is no
satisfactory explanation for why pastoralists, who have similarly maintained their
traditional way of life, are excluded from this designation, aside from the fact that
they do not engage in hunting. The justification for not considering pastoralists as
indigenous is intriguingly linked to the idea that Tanzania lacks a clear dominant
ethnic majority and that there is no marginalized or oppressed ethnic group in the
country.
69. The delegation noted the Government’s assertion that members of the Maasai
pastoral community have served at various levels of government, including in the
capacity of Prime Minister. Therefore, it would be misplaced to refer to the Maasai
as indigenous communities. This reasoning, however, appears to need a coherent
basis. As a result, there is no consensus or definitive official stance on the definition
of the term "indigenous." Different Ministries and individual officers harbour
varying perspectives on the subject. Still, there is a general discomfort with the term
"indigenous," which is often associated with "tribalism" and perceived as a potential
threat to national unity. The delegation noted that the Government officials tend to
refer to different groups in Tanzania based on their livelihood patterns, such as
pastoralists and hunter-gatherers. The Elders in Ngorongoro despite all the odds,
did inform the delegation that having lived in the Crater for over 300 years,
migrating up and down in search of pastureland, and so this migratory lifestyle
qualify them as indigenous in those places.
16
Presentation by Tanzania government officials during the Mission.
34
70. The delegation also noted the concerns by the Pastoralists that there is a need for be
more understanding, appreciation, and empathy for the unique challenges they
face. It appeared that some state officials are of the view that by embracing the term
"indigenous," these communities are making distinct demands that set them apart
from other Tanzanians. Interestingly, the delegation finds it obvious and evident
that the concept of "indigenous" has never undergone substantial scrutiny.
Furthermore, despite Tanzania's endorsement of the UN Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), there has yet to be any substantial discussion
between the government and the UN office on how to address this issue
conceptually. There is a prevailing reluctance to engage in such discussions, as it
could strain relations with the government.
71. The Delegation noted further that various ethnic groups live together in the
Ngorongoro wilderness area either as pastoralists or Agro-pastoralists. However,
the Maasai community have maintained a historical presence as the leading pastoral
group in the Ngorongoro. The Maasai originally inhabited an area referred to as the
"Maasai steppe" by the colonial administration, which extended from Loliondo on
the Kenyan border to present-day Longido, Monduli, Simanjiro, and Kiteto districts.
Over time, they've systematically lost land and essential resources, undermining
their pastoralism.
72. The delegation learned that the creation of Serengeti National Park in 1959 led to
the relocation of the resident Maasai to Ngorongoro, with promises of a balance
between Maasai interests, environmental conservation, and wildlife. However,
residents were eventually removed from Ngorongoro Crater, leading to further
restrictions on livestock movement. These measures reduced herds to unsustainable
levels. In the 1990s, a restocking program provided some relief, but grazing
limitations persisted. During the Delegation’s visit, Maasai in Ngorongoro was
experiencing hardship, with pastoralists being denied access to essential services in
the Ngorongoro Crater, such as schools and permit for erecting shelter.
73. The delegation was also informed of Civil society organizations attributed this dire
situation to the government's 2009 decision to reimpose a cultivation ban without
providing alternative livelihoods for the local community, influenced by pressure
from UNESCO and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). It
was particularly informed that the Minister of Natural Resources and Tourism
visited Loliondo, warning local leaders and civil society groups not to disrupt the
35
status quo.17 In particular, the delegation was informed that the Maasai in Loliondo
faced land boundary shifts to accommodate Ortello Business Corporation (OBC), a
hunting investor linked to the UAE royal family. Despite opposition from local
communities, OBC retained hunting rights. It was informed that from 1992 to 2008,
OBC paid nominal fees through the District Council, dissatisfying villagers. Further,
in 2008, the government encouraged direct agreements between OBC and the eight
villages in the area. However, some villages objected to OBC's exclusive land use
during hunting seasons, which is essential for livestock water and grazing.18
74. The delegation was also informed that in May 2009, the government ordered cattle
removal from hunting areas, ignoring agreements between villages and OBC. In
particular, the delegation was informed that the Field Force Unit (FFU) police
forcibly evicted people, burning homes, livestock enclosures, and fields. Local civil
society leaders were threatened, and the Minister of Natural Resources and Tourism
refused to meet with local leaders and affected people. The government initially
denied knowledge of these actions despite reports of FFU involvement. Over 50,000
cattle were left without grazing land or water, and more than 200 Maasai homes
were allegedly destroyed. Justice remained elusive, as no one was held accountable.
Inadequate compensation was provided, perpetuating injustices against the Maasai.
75. The situation demonstrated the violation of village land rights and a disregard for
legislative measures protecting indigenous communities' access to their land. The
delegation was informed that pastoralists faced discrimination and violence with
no government assistance. In particular, reference was given on reforms proposed
the replacement of hunting blocks with community-managed Wildlife Management
Areas (WMAs), allowing communities to engage with hunting investors directly.
76. In the particular context of the pastoralists living in Ngorongoro, the Ngorongoro
Conservation Area (NCA) the delegation noted that they are considered to be part
of the Greater Serengeti-Mara ecosystem, covering an area surface of 33 251
km2.19Due to the habitation of indigenous communities in Ngorongoro, it was
recognized as a Man and Biosphere Reserve in 1981. In 2010, UNESCO recognized
17
On an interview with the representatives of CSOS operating in Loliondo
Ibid, same was also reiterated during the meeting with held with the Community representatives in Loliondo at the
DC offices.
19
The NCA covers approximately 8 200 km2. The Ngorongoro has been designated a World Heritage Site
by the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) since 1979. Since then,
three historical sites have been designated: the Olduvai Gorge (recognising the evolution of hominids), the
Laitoli Australopithecus Aferensis footprints dating back to 3.7 million years ago, and the sites of varied
cultures (such as the Hadzabe, the Datoga and the Maasai
18
36
the Ngorongoro as a Mixed Nature and Cultural World Heritage Site for the
purpose of conserving nature and culture, and in 2018, as a Global Geopark.20 The
delegation was informed that Ngorongoro is the most visited conservation area in
Tanzania, followed by Serengeti National Park. In 2019, these areas drew 725,535
and 472,700 international and domestic visitors, respectively, making up nearly onethird of the country's tourist arrivals. Recent data from the Tanzania National
Bureau of Statistics reveals a 57.7% increase in arrivals from 922,692 in 2021 to
1,454,920 in 2022. National parks and conservation areas play a pivotal role in the
country's economy.21
77. It also noted that Loliondo division shares borders with Serengeti National Park to
the west, Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) to the south, and Kenya to the
north.22 It spans over 4,000 km2 and is renowned for its rich biodiversity. It serves
as a critical habitat for wildebeest, zebras, gazelles, and other animals during their
annual migration across the Ngorongoro-Serengeti-Mara ecosystem. The region
attracts thousands of tourists annually, contributing significantly to Tanzania's
tourism revenue, which was 7,292 million Tanzanian shillings (approximately US$
3.1 million) between July 2021 and June 2022.23 While specific contributions from
Serengeti National Park and the NCA could be more precise, they form a substantial
portion of this revenue.
78. The delegation learned that on 3 June 2022, Tanzania's Ministry of Natural
Resources and Tourism designated 1,500 km2 of Loliondo division for conservation
purposes, leaving the remaining land for human activities. This represents nearly
40% of Loliondo's total land area. The demarcated area, known as 'Osero' by the
Maasai people, has traditionally served as grazing land for their livestock, including
cows, goats, and sheep. Consequently, over 70,000 members of Maasai communities
in the area face displacement. It was informed by communities, that Pastoralists are
prohibited from accessing essential resources such as food, medicinal plants, and
water sources for themselves and their cattle. Tanzanian authorities argue that the
20
From the Government Presentation about Ngorongoro during the meeting at RC for Arusha
National Bureau of Statistics, United Republic of Tanzania, ‘Tourist arrivals, cement, and electricity production and
consumption,
from
January
to
December
2022’
9
February
2023
https://www.nbs.go.tz/nbs/takwimu/Tourism/Press_Release_Tourist_Arrivals_January_December_2022.pdf
(21
August 2023).
22
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) ‘Ngorongoro Conservation Area
2022 whc.unesco.org/en/list/39/ (accessed 16 August 2023).
23
Statista ‘Number of visitors at national parks in Tanzania as of 2019, by park’
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1248942/most-visited-national-parks-in-tanzania/ (accessed 6 August 2023).
21
37
Maasai's expanding population is encroaching on wildlife habitats and harming the
park.24
79. Based on the observations made by the Delegation, state officials are of the view
that the mixed-use or multiple-use model of conservation, which allowed
pastoralists to live alongside wild animals, has not worked for a number of reasons.
80. First, there is the concern that human-wildlife conflicts have been on the rise,
leading to human deaths, injuries and illnesses emanating from contact with
wildlife. Between 2015 and 2021, wildlife animals killed 842 livestock owned by
pastoral communities, and about 77 889 cattle, 78 490 sheep, and 72 881 goats died
from wildlife-related diseases. Between 2017 and 2018, about 400 livestock were
affected by the deadly Anthrax disease; Brucella and 10% from Diarrhea infected
7% of livestock. Besides the costs to livestock, no fewer than 56 people were lost to
human-wildlife attacks, with 183 people severely injured between 2015 and 2022.25
The government considers that 80% of water sources in the wild are unsafe for
human consumption and that in 2018, the outbreak of Cholera affected pastoral
communities all year round.
81. Second, there have been concerns that the population of communities in the wildlife
migration routes have drastically increased from 8,000 in 1959 to about 110,000 in
2021.26 The concerns include a rise in unplanned settlements in 25 villages (11
wards), recorded changes in vegetative cover between 1976 and 2018, the increase
of invasive species in the Ngorongoro (counted at 143 invasive species), the
disappearance of some species such as the gerenuk, topi and oryx and the
degradation of range lands in conservation areas.
82. Third, the separation of communities living in the wild from the general population
and the resulting exclusion from access to social services has led to 50% of such
communities living in poverty. The government estimates that 5,000 households
24
The same stance is reinforced by the June 2022 statement by Hon. Amb. Dr Pindi Chana, the Minister of Natural
Resources and Tourism, as she then that "The reality is that the population is growing, livestock numbers are
increasing, and we have witnessed how wild animals have been affecting them. We cannot let this trend
continue."
25
Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority (NCAA) “Presentation to the African Commission on Human and
Peoples’ Rights’ 24 January 2023 at the NCAA Headquarters, Karatu, Ngorongoro.
26
Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority (NCAA) “Presentation to the African Commission on Human and
Peoples’ Rights’ 24 January 2023 at the NCAA Headquarters, Karatu, Ngorongoro.
38
have no livestock and that about 64% of pastoral communities need to be made
literate.27
83. Even conversations with the Commission for Human Rights and Good Governance
(CHRGG) revealed that it seems already decided that the mixed-used model of
conservation has failed and that the increasing human-wildlife conflicts have
necessitated the option of relocating the pastoral communities in the Ngorongoro
and Loliondo Districts to Msomera in the Handeni District of Tanga. The critical
human rights issues identified by the CHRGG are the issue of inadequate
compensation and the lack of government sensitivity to the plight of the affected
communities. This is because eviction from Ngorongoro and Loliondo would
significantly affect their cultural and historical ties to their habitations.
4.3 Specific findings
4.3.1 The Contexts of Ngorongoro Conservation Area
84. The delegations found a crux of the matter over the residence of the Maasai pastoral
community and their claim of Ngorongoro as their ancestral land. For such
relevance, the delegation was
informed of the contexts,
dimensions, and land use of
Ngorongoro.
85. The delegation learned from
the submissions from the
government
and
the
information received during
the interaction with the CSOs
operating in Ngorongoro that Ngorongoro is one of the seven districts of the Arusha
Region, which covers an area of 14,036 km2 (5,419 sq mi). The delegation was
informed that Ngorongoro is divided into 3 Divisions, namely, Ngorongoro (8,292
sqkms, out of which 60% of all district area constitutes a World Heritage Site),
another division Loliondo (4,000 sqkms, 28.5% of district area is a Game Controlled
Area since 1908, 1911, 1929, 1951 used for calving area, migratory route, source of
water, animal movements. The third division is Sale, formed of 1,774 sqkms, out of
which 12.5% of all district area is a Human settlement.28
27
28
As above.
The presentation during the briefing meeting in the office of the Regional Commissioner for Arusha by Prof. Malebo
39
86. As to the Maasai Community inhabiting two divisions of Loliondo and
Ngorongoro, the delegations noted conflicting narrations between the reports it
received from the Government and from the discussions held with the CSOs
operating in the area, the latter expressing the popular position accepted among the
Maasai inhabitants, as the delegation could note during its interactions in the visits
and meetings.29
87. The Commission notes a similar position from the documentary evidence submitted
by the Government. In Appendix No.3 stakeholders views, item 18 records general
comments from the then Member of the Parliament for Ngorongoro, Hon. William
Ole Nasha, stating, among other things, that:
“It is not easy to look at Ngorongoro without looking at its historical
background, including the agreements with the British Administration. NCA
was basically to be developed with the interests of indigenous pastoralists.
Pastoralists were given that area as compensation after moving them from the
eastern part of the original Serengeti National Park in 1959. This was a solemn
pledge and not a promise pledge. Pastoralists are conservationists in nature,
and they have indigenous knowledge of conserving the environment.”
88. Quite contradictory, the government positioned that the most ancient tribe known
to the Ngorongoro area is the Hadzabe or Watindiga and Datoga people. It
positioned that if one is to talk about indigenous in a strict sense, then it is not the
Maasai but other tribes mentioned. Characterizing their way of life, it was stated
that the hadzabe utilize bows and arrows for hunting purposes and gather roots,
tubers, wild fruit, and honey as the significant means of life. No estimated date of
the origin of these people in the Ngorongoro area could be accounted for as opposed
to the Maasai people.30 The account for the mode of life lived by the Maasai, Datoga
and Watindiga against the environment was, however, not given by the
Government as they did to other tribes like Hadzabe.
89. Explaining the Maasi presence in Ngorongoro, the government position further that
the Maasai migrated to, fought and expelled Hadzabe and Datoga from the
Ngorongoro crater in several bloodshed battles way back between 1836 and 1851.
However, from the interactions with the Maasai Community representatives and
29
Presentation/Proceedings in the Meetings Presentation/Proceedings in the Meeting with the Tanzania Human Rights
Defenders and the Legal and Human Rights Center at Ngorongoro Tourism Center and the position that the Delegation
during the Meeting with commuting in Mokilal and Nainokanoka areas.
30
Presentation from the Government in the onset of the Meeting and the same repeated during the briefing meeting
in Karatu at the Headquaters of the NCAA in Karatu.
40
CSOs working in the area, they positioned that it is from their ancestors, the Maasai
community who live in the two divisions of Ngorongoro (Loliondo and
Ngorongoro), who were arbitrarily relocated from the Serengeti area when the
Serengeti National Park was established in 1959 something making Ngorongoro
their only known home. They positioned that it was an agreement after the
establishment of the National Park that the Government promised them of no
relocation.
90. The delegation learned that the land dispute between the Maasai community in
Loliondo and the State began around the time the Serengeti National Park was
established in 1952 by the colonial government. For many years, until 1958, the
delegation was informed that the Maasai community living in the Serengeti had
refused to move from Serengeti to give away for the established park. It learned
further that to end the dispute in 1958, Maasai elders, on behalf of the communities
of Loliondo and Ngorongoro divisions, entered an agreement with the British
colonial administration to renounce their claim to the settlement in Western
Serengeti and to move to the Ngorongoro district.
91. Also associated with the Maasai Community presence in Ngorongoro Conservation
Area (NCCA), the delegation learned that when the NCAA was established in 1959
as a state authority responsible for the management of Ngorongoro Conservation
Area (NCA), the places resided by the Maasai were accorded full or open
conservation status under what appeared as mixed land use.31 The delegation
learned that the Maasai were allowed to live and carry out their socio-economic
activities without any restrictions on the government caring for them. The
delegation learned further that the Tanzanian government retained the power to
license hunting, which was at that time restricted so that it did not affect Maasai
land tenure. Despite having lived there for many years, the delegation learned that
it was only in 1974 that the government officially designated and registered Maasai
villages in Loliondo. The delegation learned further that the Loliondo Game
Controlled Area, which comprises the entire Loliondo division and part of the Sale
division of the Ngorongoro district, was inhabited by Maasais before the
establishment of any conservation status in the area from what appears to be
resulting in the arrangements from the colonial period, which continued even after
the independence of Tanganyika.32
31
Noting from the consultation meeting with the THIRD and LHRC in Arusha, the same information also featured in
the Consultation document (appendix 3 submitted by the Government)
32
ibid
41
92. The delegation was also informed that the establishment of the NCAA yielded
significant control of the 4,000 km2 of land that the Maasai had been inhabiting since
the 1950s to the government authority. It learned of the different accounts from the
Government and the narrative on the ground held by the Maasai Community. While
the latter suggested that out of multiple land use programmes prevailing in the area,
the government accounted that it was after the independence in 1961, due to a
relaxed control, the Maasai people crept into the Loliondo Game Controlled Area.
The maasi popular narrative that the delegation noted is that Ngorongoro is their
known home, their land, to be precise, not to contradict the prevailing land tenure
system but just their home. Of course, reading several documents submitted, for
example, The Government Notice No. 459 of 1997 identifying the location of the
Ngorongoro Game Controlled area in Arusha, Maasai-District, something that
reasonably suggests a close relationship with the Maasai Community.
4.3.2 Relocation and Demarcation in Loliondo
93. While the relocation of the Maasai Community and Demarcation in the Loliondo
game-controlled area constituted two issues, the attention of the Commission was
drawn upon, as there were allegations of violations of human rights. They also
constitute the key issues that surrounded the Maasai settlement in Ngorongoro
District. The delegation confirms the relocation of Maasai from Ngorongoro to
Msomera Village in Handeni District in Tanga as it earlier reached the Commission.
It also confirmed the differentiation taking place in the Ngorongoro area.
94. On the relocation of the Maasai pastoralists from the Ngorongoro area, the
delegation was informed by the Government that it was justified along with the
changes in the population of the Maasai and their livestock vis-à-vis the Ngorongoro
land size and its conservation status. Accordingly, the government accounted for
their population in 1967, which was 9,884, which increased to 12,768 in 1978 and
further to 21,657 in 1988. 33The Government added that during the prolonged
drought of 1993, a total of 175 Kenyan Maasai pastoralists with their livestock's
15,910 cows and 15,461 sheep and goats, were locally allowed temporarily to graze
in the area since then, they assumed permanent stay to date. The delegation was
informed further that the National Population Census of 2002 revealed that
Loliondo Division had a population of 37,714 people. In terms of enforcing
compliance with Tanzania’s immigration law, the Government, however, did not
inform the delegation of any planned enforcement action for that segment of the
33
Referring to Appendix No.4 of documentary evidence submitted by the Government.
42
Maasai community who immigrated from Kenya illegally and settled in Loliondo.
It did not give any indication whether they were naturalized to Tanzania or provide
any information on their current status. The lack of any explanation in this regard
renders the government's position unsubstantiated.
95. It was stated that the increase in population posed a threat to not only the
population but also to wildlife and the ecosystem. The delegation was informed that
the wildlife-human conflict also increased with cases in which members of the
Maasai Community, primarily women and children, were attacked by wild
animals.34 While the government showed the data regarding this, in the interview
during community engagements in Ngorongoro, at Naihokanoka, the delegation
noted the majority refuting the account of the government on wildlife-human
conflict. Instead, the response from the community members in an open meeting
was that they are used to wild animals and that the latter does not pose any threat
to them. They added that they are conserving the ecosystem and do not pose any threat to
it. Specifically on the issue of the Maasai affecting the Wildlife corridor and affecting
the Wildebeest Migration, the delegation was informed of traditional knowledge
(indigenous knowledge) of the Maasai that they need direct contact with this
remarkable migration of Wildebeests. The delegation was informed that in the
seasons of the migration, the Maasai relocate to other places that are safer for them
and their livestock, as during the breeding by the Wildebeests, there is potential for
a disease to affect their livestock.
96. As to the use of force in relocation, the delegation was informed that relocation is
not forced, but voluntary upon consultations with the local communities, something
which the Government stated both during the briefing at the onset of the mission in
Arusha, in the debriefing meeting in Dodoma and during receipt of documentary
evidence of several consultations done with the Maasai Communities in Banjul-the
Gambia. Even though, during the visit, the delegation noted several cases of
dissatisfaction with the government-led consultations.
97. The delegation, in some cases, noted the community showing some elements of
being pressurized to vacate the areas for lack of social services like schools, hospitals
and, some foodstuffs, and imposition of hardships. For instance, during its meeting
with a segment of the community representatives in Mokilal in Ngorongoro, the
delegation received complaints from the residents over diminishing social services
in Ngorongoro in what appears to be the pressure for them to relocate. The
delegation expressed concern, which was later vindicated in the documentary
34
The government provided documentary (still pictures) and statistics, see, Appendix 4 (cited above)
43
evidence submitted by the Government. While to a more considerable extent
consultation was shown in the form of rallies with National leaders, the Prime
Minister to be precise, with people identified in the content to be the leaders of the
Maasai Community, the Commission notes, in particular, from the documentary
Submission on the views from the stakeholders in appendix No. 2. Eighteen
categories of stakeholders who appeared to have been consulted, their views,
identified challenges and proposed solutions.
98. In general, while appreciating the challenges identified above on population, they
provided several suggestions apart from relocating the Communities. The
delegation has yet to receive an account as to why relocating the Maasai was taken
on top of every other suggestion owing to the facts associated with their presence
in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area as accounted herein. For instance, there were
suggestions like imposing regulating the number of livestock per person, education
and service provision and finding other ways to regulate overpopulation in the area,
zoning of the Multiple land use, having established the carriage capacity of the law
of course in direct partnership with the affected communities and repatriating the
segment of the community which the community and the government believe that
encroached the area illegally or clandestinely from neighbouring country-Kenya.
The Commission notes, in particular, the recommendation given by the NCAA
board of directors and the Management that the current Multiple Land Use Model
should continue. Still, all challenges facing it should be addressed legally,
administratively or politically.35
99. As to the question of boundary demarcation in the Loliondo area, the delegation
also confirmed that the demarcation by the erection of beacons did indeed take
place. However, it is the processes employed in the demarcation that has generated
a lot of controversy. The delegation had an aerial view of the demarcations and also
had the opportunity to go to Beacon No. 110, travelling from the Waso area in
Ngorongoro. During the physical observation of the demarcation beacons, the
delegation was informed by the government that 2,500 square kilometres were
granted for agriculture, pastoral use and human settlements regardless of whether
their stay in the protected area was contrary to the law. It was reported that the
conservation retained 1,500 square kilometres by implanting beacons intended to
(a) Protect and conserve national and world heritage, (b) Protect and conserve water
sources for the Serengeti–Mara Ecosystem, (c) Protect and conserve wildlife calving
35
See, Appendix No. 3 of the documents submitted by the Government, at pg 18 and 19
44
ground, and (d) Protect and conserve significant wildebeest migration corridor
from human interference.
100. While justifying this process along the land tenure system applicable in Tanzania
since British colonial rule, the government informed the delegation that the colonial
government declared all land in Tanganyika to be public lands under the direct
control of the British governor, according to the Land Ordinance of 1923, Chapter
113. It was stated that the British Colonial government introduced the concept of
public lands and gave the Governor the powers to Grant Leaseholds, which was
retained through the Land Ordinance of 1923 by the Tanganyika government to
date. In the same context, the delegation found that the Land Act Cap 113 (the law
applicable to date) declares all lands in Tanzania to continue to be public land vested
in the President as a trustee for and on behalf of all the citizens of Tanzania.
101. The delegation learned that the land system in Tanzania reveals no ancestral or
traditional land as recognized by the law. In the pretexts, the delegation was
informed that there is no part of the land in the United Republic of Tanzania that is
considered to be indigenous or ancestral land to anyone.
102. Regardless of this position, there were instances in which the delegations noted
conflicting stances in the laws cited by the government and those presented during
the delegation meeting with the representatives of the Maasai Communities. In
particular, the delegation noted selectivity and biases on a choice of what to carry
over in the government stances. Considering, for example, the concept of public
land taken from the colonial period and leaving the averment of the rights created
through colonial government to the Maasi Community over their settlement in the
Ngorongoro area in the 1950s, the delegation noted it as quite striking.
103. The delegation also took note of the provisions of section 16(5) of the Wildlife
Conservation Act, which stipulates that registered village land cannot be used as
game-controlled areas (GCAs) and also provided a window of twelve (12) months
from its enactment for the relevant Government Minister to review the old GCAs if
they fell on registered village land, which was not done in as far several villages
were claimed be registered inside the 1,500 km2 demarcated conservation area.
104. In this regard, the delegation was informed by the consulted CSOs operating in
Loliondo that the land covered by the wildlife conservation corridor in 1,500 km2
fell on some registered village lands, which should not have been designated as a
GCA. The Government, on the other hand, informed the delegation that there were
45
no villages on the excised 1500km2 on pretexts, citing several laws, namely, the
Fauna and Flora Conservation Ordinance of 1951, the Wildlife Conservation Act
No. 12 of 1974 and the Wildlife Conservation Act No. 5 of 2009 (Cap. 283 R.E 2022).
105. Now, because of this conflicting stance, the delegation noted during the interactions
with the communities that the process of differentiation involved the use of force as
the community tended to resist the process for what appeared that some beacons
cut across their villages and areas they use for grazing. At the same time, the
delegations received information that Several people were injured. Others fled to
the neighbouring country, Kenya. The government refuted this both during the
mission and in the responses to the additional questions, stating first that there has
been no eviction of the Maasai community in Loliondo Division because there were
no settlements in the demarcated 1,500 km2 and that the allegation that there was
eviction was a mere fabrication.
106. The delegation, however, noted a contradiction on the part of the government when
it stated that there was no eviction. Still, there was violence from the local
community that resisted the demarcation of the 1,500 km2, leading to the killing of
a Policeman, and there was no reported information on the injured. The delegation
posed a rhetoric: If there was no eviction, why was there violence from the local
people?
107. Drawing the inference of the presence of communities in the demarcated areas from
the circumstances noted on the ground and as shown from the rhetoric above, the
delegation inquired about the level of consultations done with the communities.
Indeed, in the consultations with the community representatives from Olosokwan,
one of the villages that appeared to have been affected by the process of
differentiation and from the information it received during the meeting with the
community representatives on a joint meeting with the CSOs operating in Loliondo,
the delegation was informed by the community that they only met once by the
Regional Commissioner for Arusha, Hon. John Mongella who briefed them on the
government plans to restrict the land and the next time they only saw military and
other armed men conducting the demarcation of beacons ever since the delegation
was informed of shrinking civic space with journalists facing arrests and restrictions
to access Ngorongoro.
4.3.3 Resettlement to Msomera Village Handeni-Tanga Region
108. The delegation confirmed that there is indeed an ongoing process of the relocation
of the Maasai pastoral Community from Ngorongoro to Msomera village based on
46
the reasons associated with the need for conservation of the Ngorongoro area,
increased Human-Wildlife Conflicts, and population pressure in Ngorongoro as
indicated above.
109. Just for contextualization, the delegation learned that Msomera village is one of the
91 villages in Handeni District Council, located in Misima Ward, in Sindeni
Division. Msomera village is surrounded by Mbagwi and Mzeri villages on the East
side, Kilindi District Council on the West side, Simanjiro District Council on the
North side, and Handeni Township Council on the South side. The delegation also
learned that the People of Msomera village are involved in various economic
activities, including livestock keeping, agriculture, hunting, and business. The
delegation was particularly informed that the choice of Msomera for relocating the
Maasai Community from Ngorongoro was based on consideration of the
socioeconomic ties between the people already there, among other reasons. It was
stated that most Maasai communities living in Msomera had their origin in
Ngorongoro, given their nomadic way of life and keeping livestock.36
110. As to the choices surrounding the relocation, the delegation was informed the
relocation was voluntary and done in consultation with the people. However, no
account was given on whether the Maasai Communities chose to go to Msomera
other than other places, and no account is made of whether such a choice was there
in the first place. The delegation learned that the government had allocated and
granted them a piece of land for the construction of houses, grazing and farming. In
particular, the delegation was informed of the uniqueness and peculiarity of the
Msomera as an exemplary village for how the government has made it ready to
receive the Maasai community relocating from the Ngorongoro area and at the same
time accommodating the existing inhabitants. The delegation noted various
infrastructures constructed in Msomera to cater for human needs, such as the
housing, health, education, water and communication infrastructures.
111. As to the housing, the delegation was informed that the Government initiated a
project to build 503 houses in Msomera. It was reported that the exercise to relocate
residents from Ngorongoro and their property has so far been carried out in 18
phases from June 16, 2022. In the government report during the visit to Msomera, it
was stated that the households that were relocated were 551, with a total of 3,010
people and 15,321 livestock. The delegation was also shown through the Electricity
Supply carried out by TANESCO with its Rural Electricity Agency (REA) covering
the 503 houses built in the first phase. It was also reported that the construction of
36
Presentations during the visit at Mama Samia Primary School by the Ag, Handeni District Executve Director
47
an extensive line (MV line) with a voltage of 33 kilovolts with a length of 30
kilometres and a small line (LV line) with 0.4KV voltage with a length of 25
kilometres had been completed.
112. The delegation was also shown the road construction done through the Tanzania
Rural and Urban Roads Agency (TARURA), registering the maintenance of 86km
along Msomera Village with the contract price of TZS 705,114,000. The delegation
was also shown through Educational Infrastructures, with the actual fund received
for education for the same being TZS.355,500,000.00 for the Construction of 6
classrooms for Primary Schools, seven classrooms for Secondary Schools and 20 pit
latrines (completed), 1 Hostel for Disabled Students (foundation stage) and 1
Laboratory (at the finishing stage). It also saw two schools registered, which are
Samia Suluhu Hassan Primary School with Reg. No. EM.19558, and Msomera
Secondary School Reg. No. with S.5860. In terms of Statistics, it was reported that
until 24/01/2023, the number of students admitted to the Samia Suluhu Hassan
Primary School was 866 (448 boys and 418 girls), and for the secondary school, a
total of 179 students (102 boys and 77 girls).
113. As to the Health Services, the delegation was informed that the Msomera village
dispensary had received Tsh. 50,000,000 from the Central Government for the
rehabilitation and Construction of the Maternity Ward. It was also reported that the
construction was completed. In addition, it was reported that the Handeni District
Council had received TZS 500,000,000 from the Central government for the
construction of a Health centre for six buildings, which are OPD, Maternity
combined with operation theatre, laboratory, laundry, incinerator and staff house 3
in 1 which is currently on the Completion stage.
114. The delegation was also introduced to the construction of livestock care-related
infrastructure. It was reported that the Handeni District Council received funds
amounting to TZS.193,360,800.00 for the construction of 6 dips and the renovation
of 1 dip, the processes of which the delegation was informed to be completed. In
addition, the delegation was informed that the Handeni District Council had
received funds for the construction of the livestock market, which was in the
completion stage during the mission.
115. As to water Supply Services, the delegation was informed about the population
projection in Msomera village from 7,967 to 17,000. With this, it was also projected
that the water demand would be 450 cubic meters per day, according to scientific
48
calculations of 25 litres of water being used a day per person. To ensure that
Msomera community members get safe and clean water in large quantities, the
delegation was informed that the government of Tanzania, through the Ministry of
Water, conducted a geophysical survey and drilled boreholes which are expected to
produce not less than 450 cubic meters per day to supply water to the respective
population.
116. Interacting with the people in Msomera regarding resettlement and integration, the
delegation noted mixed reactions. For the original inhabitants of Msomera, the
delegation noted a sense of dissatisfaction with the manner in which the
government conducted the project. Some claim their pieces of land to have been
grabbed away and granted to newcomers from Ngorongoro with neither being
consulted nor compensated. In some instances, the delegation was informed that
the land was acquired under intimidation and use of force by the government
agents involved in the process. For instance, in the meeting at Msomera, the
delegation noted subsisting disputes over land between the original inhabitants of
Msomera and those relocated from Ngorongoro, and it noted the potential for
further conflicts.
117. The government justified its takes of lands in Msomera along the point that it was
part of the Handeni Game Controlled Area (GCA), which was established by G.N.
No. 269 of 1974 and remained with this lawful status till 2022 when the Government
planned to establish a Village known as Msomera. The delegation was informed
that even though the existing local community in Msomera had previously crept
into the Handeni GCA between the 1980s and 1990s, the government narrative,
which the delegation found to be opposed by some community members in
Msomera was that in due consideration of the human rights of the people, consulted
and involved them in the process of land use planning via Village meetings.
118. Going through the documentary evidence in Appendix No. 2 of the documentary
evidence submitted by the government, the delegation noted that the meeting
referred to was only to inform the people of the development activities by the
District Commissioner. It did not include information to relocate the people from
Ngorongoro. It supports the concerns, the Commission received from segments of
the population in Msomera. It also supports the allegation received from affected
communities during one of its meetings.
119. There were claims that people were being grabbed of their possession of land by
49
force. This bearing has the potential to bring conflict between the people and
challenge integration. Finding examples from other similar relocation processes to
have taken place in the framework of NCA, the delegation noted one of the
scenarios it got from the documentary it received. Between 2007 and 2010, 159
households, it found that some Maasai were relocated from NCA to Jema village.
However, currently, only about 55 households remain, although it is not known
exactly when they left. Some of the families moved to other areas, such as Handeni,
Kilindi, and Kiteto. In contrast, others returned to NCA due to difficulties in
integrating with the original inhabitants, known as the Sonjo people, among other
reasons. The report highlights the strained relationship between the resettled
families and the Sonjo community, which continues to deteriorate. The Sonjo people
have even gone to the extent of taking land that was meant for the resettled families,
and the resettled families are denied access to social services such as piped water.
Due to continued threats, many resettled families have been forced to leave, and
those who remain live without peace.
120. In another instance, the delegation noted concerns from some of the Maasai
Community members who relocated to Msomera over what appeared to be
changed in the packages of what they were promised initially when relocating in
terms of acres of land and the number of houses to be constructed per family,
especially those formed of polygamous families.
4.3.4 The Situation of Indigenous Populations/ Communities
121. The delegation considers and remains aware of the fact that Tanzania’s context of
the existing indigenous people has been a subject in the African Commission and
the Government of Tanzania engagements for quite a long. It is something that is a
dire question of the Tanzania Legal Obligation under the African Charter on Human
and Peoples’s Right, notably the general obligation under Article 1. Upon adoption
of the Report on the Status of Indigenous People by the Expert Group in the year
2000, it was incumbent upon a state to harmonize its domestic law to reflect the
obligation under the Charter. The delegation in particular, refers to the 2003 report
of the African Commission which was endorsed by the AU in 2005, that recognized
in post-colonial Africa, the term ‘indigenous peoples is used to referring to those
communities in Africa whose cultures and ways of life differ considerably from the
dominant society, and whose cultures are under threat, in some cases to the point of
extinction; the survival of their particular way of life depends on access and rights
to their traditional lands and the natural resources thereon; who suffer from
discrimination as they are regarded as less developed and less advanced than other
more dominant sectors of society; who live in inaccessible regions, often
50
geographically isolated, and suffer from various forms of marginalization, both
politically and socially; and who are subjected to domination and exploitation
within national political and economic structures that are commonly designed to
reflect the interests and activities of the national majority.
122. Relevant for Tanzania, the delegation referred in paragraph 37 of the 2008
Concluding Observations on its Second Report, in which the Commission
recommended that Tanzania should "[formulate a definition of indigenous peoples
that accommodates Tanzania's circumstances and is consistent with the provisions
and principles of the African Charter." Enquiring as to what extent the
recommendation was worked upon during the mission, the delegation was
informed that the legal system of Tanzania does not provide for indigenous people.
Instead, it recognizes only the citizens of Tanzania. The delegation was further
informed of the government’s position that discussion on who the Indigenous
Peoples had the potential to breach unity and peace by raising issues of tribalism
and differences in the Nation.
123. A similar position was reiterated in the debriefing meeting between the delegation
and the Ministries led by Hon. Minister for Constitutional Affairs in Dodoma. It
was accounted that the United Republic of Tanzania (URT) has more than 120 tribes
with at least 185 local dialects. Benchmarking with what is taking place in the
neighbouring countries on pretexts of tribalism, the delegation was informed that
the celebration of diversity in Tanzania has no place to allow ethnicity and that the
government is going to jealously maintain and safeguard peace and unity as it
cannot afford for a country this vast and this diverse to be involved in any disorder
let alone conflict.
124. It was for the reasons stated the delegation was informed that Tanzania lacks a clear
dominant ethnic majority and there is no marginalized nor oppressed ethnic group.
Therefore, the delegation was advised that it is misplaced to use this categorization
of indigenous people as Maasai residing in Tanzania. Although this remains a clear
position as such, to specifically comment on the issue of the Maasai being
considered indigenous, the delegation was informed that the Maasai cannot be
considered indigenous to the Ngorongoro Conservation area as they arrived in the
Ngorongoro about 150 years ago to find the Hadzabe who had settled there 3000
years ago and the Datoga who had settled there 400 years ago. It was notably
reported that the Maasai chased away the majority of the people of these tribes and
51
became dominant over the area as there were other tribes which also resided in the
Ngorongoro Conservation Area.
125. In all the cases, however, the delegation learned a sense of readiness of the Maasai
community and their openness to having a dialogue with the government. “We are
not criminals and are ready to talk with our government”, appeared multiple members
of the community during the engagement with the Delegation Mokilal and
Nainokanoka Ngorongoro and in Msomera village.
4.4 Concerns
126. Despite several efforts noted on the part of the government during the mission, the
delegation noted various issues to be challenging for Tanzania in reaching its
obligation under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
4.4.1 General Concerns
127. The delegation remains concerned with an unclear position concerning the
relationship between international law and domestic law and, in fact, regarding the
lack of domestication of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, as well
as the Maputo Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa.
128. The delegation is still concerned about the delay in the submission of the periodic
State Reports of the United Republic of Tanzania, the last having been submitted in
May 2008 despite the reasons advanced.
4.4.2 Specific Concerns
129. The delegation noted with concern particular challenges associated with the
relocation of pastoral communities from the Ngorongoro Conservation Area and the
demarcation of the Loliondo Game Controlled Area of 4,000 km2 into a protected
wildlife conservation corridor of 1,500 km2 and the multiple-use Game Controlled
Area of 2,500 km2, reserved for the habitation of pastoral and farming communities
in Loliondo. While it notes it to be subject to the land tenure system in Tanzania, the
delegation is concerned with the reports it received on the injuries caused to the
civilian population because of the use of force and confrontations that took place,
the loss of livestock for lack of grazing lands, in the places affected by the
demarcation, especially in Olosokwan. In addition, it also noted the resettlement
programme in Msomera due to the potential for conflict between those who were
already settled in Msomera and those who have been relocated from Ngorongoro.
130. Despite the extent of consultations the Government reported to have made, the
delegation noted with concern during the visit and meetings various allegations of
a lack of consultations by several members of the communities visited. There were
52
suggestions that any consultations had been held, they were either held with an
insignificant fraction of the community or were not sufficient. The delegation
remains concerned about reports received from the consulted communities in
regards to inadequate consultations and inadequate information regarding the
relocation and resettlement programmes in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, as
well as allegations of reduction of provision of social amenities, which negatively
impacts the lives of the people and effectively forces them to leave to the Area; and
Regarding the lack of adequate consultation and inclusion of the local communities
in the demarcation exercise in Loliondo, as well as reports of the use of force and
threats against community members who contest the demarcation.
131. In this regard, the delegation wishes to highlight that being voluntarily relocated
from the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, the delegation has benefitted from the
Government’s clarification of its laws, conservation efforts and policies in the Area.
However, the delegation has observed from its consultations that the majority of the
members of the affected pastoral communities in Ngorongoro are willing to relocate
only because of the constraints being faced and the reported limited access to basic
amenities, which is not correct. Many of those who are willing to relocate and have
registered themselves for relocation to Msomera have decried the persisting delay
by the Government in evaluating their properties and processing their
compensation, as well as the reduction in the compensation package, including, for
instance, that they will not be provided with Government-built houses in Msomera,
as opposed to those offered to the first set of resettled people. They have also decried
the lack of prompt and adequate information about the implementation of the
relocation programme. They claim that they are unable to grow food or undertake
any subsistence projects for their benefit due to uncertainties about when they will
be relocated.
132. Concerning those who do not want to relocate from the Ngorongoro Conservation
Area, the Delegation noted: - Allegations of inadequate consultation regarding their
relocation from the Area; Allegations that the Government has moved budgetary
allocations for social services such as education and healthcare in the Ngorongoro
Conservation Area, to Msomera, in Handeni District of Tanga Region, and has also
placed restrictions on further construction of educational and health facilities in the
Ngorongoro Conservation Area; and Allegations that the Government had placed
restrictions on grazing, including access to the salt lick deposit in the Ngorongoro
Crater, and that the alternative provided by the Government was found to be toxic
to the lives of their livestock, resulting in the death of some of their livestock.
53
133. Regarding the Msomera Village in Handeni District, the Delegation observed that
there are incidences of disputes between existing residents of Msomera and the
pastoral families who have just been relocated from Ngorongoro Conservation Area
over access to land, and due to perceived favourable treatment of the resettled
pastoral communities from Ngorongoro Conservation Area, for example, by being
provided Government houses and land; and the existing inhabitants of Msomera
consider that they were not adequately consulted about the relocation and
resettlement program, affecting their community.
PART VI: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Conclusion
134. The delegation, appreciates the efforts by the Government of Tanzania towards
realizing the promise of the human rights and freedoms enshrined in the
Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania and those enunciated in the African
Charter. In particular, it recognizes the opportunities presented by the Constitution,
laws, policies, and administrative processes of Tanzania to address the human rights
issues in the United Republic of Tanzania, including the rights guaranteed in the
various human rights treaties ratified by the country and the commitment of the
Government to strive in its conduct for living up to the standards set by the
respective instruments.
135. The delegation appreciates the presence of the various legislative, institutional,
policy, regulatory and budgetary measures it was informed of that have been put in
place to enhance the promotion and protection of these human and peoples’ rights
in the nation and commends the Government for inviting the African Commission
on Human and Peoples’ Rights to undertake this Promotion Mission in the country,
for providing ample access to the agro-pastoral communities in the Ngorongoro and
Handeni Districts, and for placing at the disposal of the Commission resources to
enable the delegation of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights
carry out its mission in Tanzania;
54
136. In the context of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, the demarcation of the
boundaries and relocation of the Maasai Community to Msomera and generally the
human rights situation of the indigenous peoples in Tanzania, noting some impacts
of the legacies of colonialism in Tanzania on the enjoyment of the rights and
freedoms guaranteed in the African Charter, particularly concerning pastoral
communities whose ways of life are inextricably connected to the land, which the
colonial governments appropriated. The Commission finds the situation of the
Maasai Community, to be precise, despite the position of the law as the Government
presents it, to be that of Gross human rights concern. The Community losing their
right to the only known home to them. Even if relocation is sought to be the avenue,
a due re-consideration and other mitigation measures remain the norm.
5.2. Recommendations
5.2.1. General Recommendations
137. The Delegation urges the Government of Tanzania to:
(a) Domesticate and observe the provisions of the African Charter on Human
and Peoples’ Rights, the Maputo Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa,
as well as other regional human rights legal instruments that Tanzania has
ratified;
(b) Ratify the regional and international human rights instruments that have not
yet been ratified, including the African Union Convention on the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, the Protocol to the African
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities, the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’
Rights on the Rights of Older Persons, and the African Convention on Data
Protection and Cyber Security; the Kampala Convention on Internally
Displaced Persons.
(c) Consider re-instating the declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol to
the African Charter on the Establishment of the African Court on Human and
Peoples' Rights, which permits individual and NGO access to the African
Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which was withdrawn in 2019.
(d) Implement the recommendations given in the Promotion Mission to the
United Republic of Tanzania, which was conducted by the Commission in
2008, as well as the Research and Information Visit conducted by its Working
55
Group on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples/Communities and Minorities, in
2013 in as far as indigenous peoples’ rights are concerned;
(e) Submit outstanding Periodic Reports under Article 62 of the African Charter
and participate regularly in the activities of the Commission, including
attending sessions and programmes of the Commission and
(f) Put in place adequate mechanisms for ensuring the protection of Human
Rights Defenders from attacks, including by conducting prompt
investigations into reported attacks and guaranteeing access to justice.
5.2.2. Specific Recommendations
138. The Delegation urges the Government of Tanzania to:
(a) In light of several community calls for compelling and conclusive
consultations, explore fresh rounds of civil dialogues with the respective
pastoral and farming communities in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area,
Loliondo and Msomera to advance peaceful resolutions of individual and
group grievances in the implementation of the Government’s conservation
efforts in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area and Loliondo;
(b) Ensure, following the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights,
including specifically Articles 21 and 22 of the same, the inclusive, effective,
and rigorous participation of local and affected communities, including the
women and youth, in all conservation programs and processes initiated by
the Government, in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area and Loliondo;
(c) Provide adequate information and timely assistance to pastoralists in the
Ngorongoro Conservation Area who have signed up for voluntary relocation
and ensure their adequate and effective compensation in line with the
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and
(d) Attend to the complaints about the decline in social amenities and
infrastructure in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area to ensure continued
dignified living conditions for the local communities whilst awaiting the
relocation of those who have volunteered to be relocated, as well as for those
who choose to remain behind, in respect of which latter group the
Government should reach a mutually acceptable strategy with the affected
56
people.
(e) In regards death penalty, the Delegation urges the Government of Tanzania to
hast in the processes and formalize the abolition of the death penalty and, in
particular, to give effects to the decisions in Rajabu v. United Republic of
Tanzania and subsequent judgments by the African Court on Human and
Peoples' Rights as part and parcel of her fidelity to the rule of law and
international obligation, and
(f) In regard to the situations of enforced disappearance, The Delegation urges
the Government of Tanzania to ratify the International Convention on the
Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
57
APPENDICES
Appendix One: Demographic Statistics of the Meetings Conducted
A. Number of Meetings and Visitations Done
1. High Profile Meeting: 1 (with the Speaker of the Parliament of Tanzania)
2. The number of other meetings Conducted: 13.
3. Open Gatherings with communities: 6
4. Schools visited: 3
5. Number of people met (inclusively): 295;
6. Number of women involved in the Meetings: 76; and
7. Number of Men involved in the Meetings: 219
B. Demographic Illustration of the Attendance
S/N
MEETING
Participants
FE
ME
5
16
Total
1.
2.
Government Officials in Arusha at the office of the Regional
Commissioner of Arusha
LHRC and THRD
4
5
NGO (FZS and AWF)
3
4
4.
Meeting TACAIDS
4
3
5.
Meeting CSOs Operating in Ngorongoro Conservation Area and
Some Community members
Relocation Committee Ngorongoro
9
25
9
7
7
34
3.
6
29
Members of the Community in Ngorongoro awaiting relocation to
Msomera
NCAA Loliondo Game Controlled Area
11
25
3
24
8
15
10.
CSOs operating in Loliondo and a fraction of the Community
members in Loliondo
Tanga Regional Commissioner and the Msomera Settlement Team
6
34
11.
The Commission of Human Rights and Good Governance
4
9
12.
Meeting the Government Officials in Dodoma
8
12
6.
7.
8.
9.
58
21
35
36
27
23
40
13
20
13.
Community Representatives of Loliondo Victims of Land
Acquisition
5
18
23
76
219
295
C. Approximation of the Community Members met on Open Gatherings:
S/N LOCATION
NUMBER
1.
Nainokanoka Village -Ngorongoro
100
9
2.
Mokilal Village- Village @ Pastoral Council Hostels in
Ngorongoro
60
5
3.
Msomera Open Meeting
200
10
4.
Msomera Uwanja Wa kiroho
100
8
59
SPEAKERS
Appendix Two: List of Documentary Evidence Evaluated
i)
Attendance of various stakeholders and members of the Special Committee for
Reviewing and Evaluating the multiple land use model of the Ngorongoro
Conservation Area,
ii)
Data on wildlife-human conflicts in Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority
for the past eight years,
iii)
Government Notice no. 269 of 1974 — The Wildlife Conservation (Game
Controlled Areas) Order,
iv)
Government Notice no. 421 of 17/5/2022 — The Wildlife Conservation
(Pololeti Game Controlled Area) Order and Swahili version, and
v)
Government Notice no. 604 of 14/10/2022 - The Wildlife Conservation
(Pololeti Game Reserve) Swahili version.
vi)
List of cases in Court concerning offences committed by Ngorongoro residents
and
vii)
List of photos of the Special Committee for Reviewing and Evaluating the
Multiple Land Use Model during engagement sessions with residents from the
Ngorongoro Conservation Area,
viii)
Minutes of Msomera village consultation meetings,
ix)
Pictures and opinions of various stakeholders, including residents of the
Ngorongoro Conservation Area, collected from 2018 to 2020,
x)
Report of the Joint Committee for the Resolutions of the land use conflicts in
Loliondo Game Controlled Area,
xi)
Report of the Multiple Land Use Model of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area:
Achievement and lessons learnt, challenges and Options for the Future,
xii)
Report on the joint WHC/ICOMOS/IUCN Mission to Ngorongoro
Conservation Area, Republic of Tanzania, 10th to 13th April 2012,
xiii)
Research paper "Will Ngorongoro Conservation Area Remain a world heritage
site amidst increasing human footprint?",
xiv)
Stakeholder views - Sector Ministries,
xv)
The Wildlife Conservation (Non-Consumptive Wildlife Utilization) Regulation
of 2015,
xvi)
The Wildlife Conservation (Tourist Hunting) Regulations of 2016,
xvii) The Wildlife Conservation Act of 1974,
xviii) The Wildlife Conservation Act of 2009 [R.E. 2022],
xix)
UNESCO reactive Monitoring mission, 29th April to 5th May 2007 — 31 COM,
xx)
UNESCO reactive Monitoring mission, 30th June to 10th July 2019 — 43 COM,
xxi)
UNESCO, Report of the State Party on Local Community Issues in Ngorongoro
Administrative District, 28th December 2022,
60
xxii)
Video clips of consultations and dissemination of information regarding land
use in Msomera Village, the Ngorongoro Conservation Area and the Loliondo
Game Controlled Area,
61