Tanzania Faces Pressure Over Death Sentence Ruling

The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights has ordered Tanzania to overturn the death sentence of Ladislaus Chalula, a ruling that has reignited debates over the country’s stance on capital punishment.

Chalula, convicted of murder in 1991, has spent more than three decades on death row. His case took a new turn when the African Court ruled on February 5, 2025, that his sentence violated fundamental human rights. The court instructed the Tanzanian government to remove him from death row and conduct a fresh trial without imposing the mandatory death penalty. It also called for the removal of execution by hanging from the country’s laws and gave authorities six months to report back on their progress.

However, legal experts and human rights activists remain skeptical about whether Tanzania will comply. The government has a history of ignoring similar rulings, including one issued by the same court in June 2024, which called for the abolition of the mandatory death penalty. That directive remains unimplemented, raising questions about whether this latest judgment will lead to real change.

For Chalula, the ruling offers a glimmer of hope after decades of uncertainty. “This is not just about one man,” said a human rights advocate familiar with the case. “It’s about the future of justice in Tanzania. No one should spend 30 years not knowing whether they will live or die.”

Also Read; Gold Prices Hit Record High Amid
Global Uncertainty 

While Tanzania has not carried out an execution in over 20 years, courts continue to hand down death sentences, leaving hundreds of prisoners in legal limbo. Human rights organizations argue that this outdated practice is cruel and should be abolished. Meanwhile, some government officials and sections of the public believe the death penalty serves as a deterrent to crime, making its abolition a politically sensitive issue.

With the six-month deadline looming, the international community is closely watching Tanzania’s next move. Will the government take steps toward reform, or will this ruling be another ignored directive?