High Court Rules Bakwata Not Supreme Muslim Body in Tanzania

Dar es Salaam – The High Court has declared that the National Muslim Council of Tanzania (Bakwata) is not the supreme or sole umbrella body for Muslims in Tanzania, ruling that state authorities acted unconstitutionally by compelling Muslim organisations to seek its endorsement as a condition for registration.

In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, December 24, 2025, a three-judge bench comprising Justices Elizabeth Mkwizu, Awamu Mbagwa and Hamidu Mwanga held that the Registrar of Societies and the Administrator-General lacked any legal basis to recognise Bakwata as the exclusive representative of the Muslim community.

The ruling arose from a constitutional petition filed by Prof Hamza Njozi and nine others, who challenged the long-standing requirement that Muslim organisations submit introduction or reference letters from Bakwata before they could be registered or have their trustees incorporated.

"The requirement for submission of an introduction or reference letter from Bakwata is not a statutory requirement under the Societies Act or the Trustees’ Incorporation Act," the judges held, adding that no provision of law empowered the respondents to impose such a condition.

The petitioners argued that the practice violated Articles 19 and 20 of the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of religion and association, as well as the right to equality before the law.

They further contended that Bakwata could not lawfully serve as an umbrella body for all Muslims because its constitution restricts leadership to adherents of the Sunni-Shafi’i denomination.

After examining Bakwata’s constitutional provisions, the court agreed, finding that its leadership criteria "exclude Shia Muslims and other Sunni denominations," thereby undermining its claim to represent the entire Muslim population.

"Such an organisation cannot be said to be a legitimate representative of all Tanzanian Muslims," the bench ruled, observing that compelling other Muslim organisations to seek endorsement from Bakwata effectively forced them to associate with an organisation "not of their choice" and to conform to a particular denomination.

The judges also criticised the state for failing to justify its conduct either in law or evidence. Letters issued by the Registrar of Societies and the Administrator-General insisting on Bakwata endorsement cited no statutory provisions, and the respondents were unable to point to any legal authority empowering them to do so.

In one such directive, the registrar instructed an applicant that they were required to submit "a letter from Bakwata and not Baraza Kuu Tanzania," a demand the court found to be wholly unsupported by law.

The bench further scrutinised Bakwata’s historical legitimacy. While the organisation was registered in 1968, the court noted that its first constitution was only adopted in 1999, and neither the state nor Bakwata could produce records identifying its founding members.

"This buttresses the suspicion that none of the Tanzanian Muslims founded Bakwata, contrary to what it claims," the court observed, reinforcing the petitioners’ argument that the organisation’s elevation as a supreme Muslim authority lacked a constitutional foundation.

The petitioners also challenged the National Vocational Training Board Regulations, 1981 and Item (k) of the schedule to the National Education Advisory Council, 2002 which accord preferential recognition to Bakwata by recognising it as a member of VETA’s board and granting its secretary a seat on the Education Council, thereby excluding other Muslim organisations.

However, the judges declined to grant all the reliefs sought. They dismissed the challenge to provisions of the National Vocational Training Board Regulations of 1981, which had previously accorded Bakwata representation, on the grounds that the parent law had since been repealed.

"Since the impugned law is no longer in force, we find the petitioners’ contention misplaced and devoid of merit," the court held, noting that Bakwata does not sit on the current VETA board.

The court also rejected claims that Bakwata’s presence on the National Education Advisory Council was unconstitutional, accepting the state’s argument that the organisation participates as a stakeholder in the education sector rather than as a religious representative.

On the central issue of registration and incorporation, however, the ruling was unequivocal. The judges concluded that the conduct of the Registrar of Societies and the Administrator-General "violates the provisions of Articles 19 and 20 of the Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional."

Consequently, the court issued declaratory orders barring authorities from imposing conditions that compel Muslim organisations to recognise Bakwata as their supreme body or to obtain its endorsement as a prerequisite for registration. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.