Paradigm Initiative (PIN) has thrown its support behind an ongoing constitutional case before the High Court of Tanzania challenging restrictions on access to X, formerly known as Twitter, in the East African country.
A determination on the matter is expected on May 22, 2026.
The case was filed in 2025 by Tanzanian lawyers, Tito Elia Magoti and Kumbusho Dawson Kagine, as a public interest constitutional challenge against the Minister for Communications and Information Technology, the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority (TCRA), and the Attorney General.
The applicants are seeking judicial intervention on the constitutionality of actions restricting access to digital platforms under the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania and the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act.
The dispute stems from restrictions imposed on May 20, 2025, which have rendered X inaccessible to users in Tanzania except through the use of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs).
The applicants argued that the restriction violates constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 18, 20 and 29, including freedom of expression, access to information and freedom of assembly.
They further contended that the measures were blanket in nature, disproportionate in impact and introduced without public consultation or clear legal justification.
According to court filings, the restriction has disrupted access to public health information, affected digital and media-related livelihoods, constrained journalistic activities and undermined civic participation.
The applicants also noted that forcing citizens to rely on VPNs imposes additional financial and potential legal burdens while fragmenting communication within the country.
Supporting the suit, PIN said restrictions of such nature undermine constitutional guarantees and risk establishing disproportionate state control over digital spaces.
Executive Director of PIN, Gbenga Sesan, said the case raises critical questions about the limits of state power in regulating digital platforms.
“Where restrictions are imposed, they must meet constitutional thresholds of legality, necessity and proportionality.
“Blanket disruptions of access to widely used platforms threaten not only freedom of expression but also the broader ecosystem of civic participation and access to information,” Sesan said.
In response, the respondents denied claims that the restriction on X in Tanzania constitutes a global concern.
They maintained that the action was lawful and necessary to ensure public safety, public health and public morals.
The respondents further argued that the owner of X had been given prior notice to comply with Tanzanian laws and procedures before the restriction was imposed.
They said access to the platform was restricted due to the owner’s alleged failure to comply with local regulatory requirements.
The case remains pending before the High Court of Tanzania, with observers saying its outcome could define constitutional boundaries for digital platform restrictions and shape digital rights jurisprudence across the region.
