Tanzania deserves mutual respect, not political lectures

DAR ES SALAAM: TANZANIA’S hosting of the 153rd Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) in Arusha from October 5 to 9, 2026, showcased the country’s role in international parliamentary diplomacy.

The gathering brought together nearly 700 parliamentarians from more than 130 countries to discuss good governance, inclusion, trust and opportunities for all.

However, the Assembly also became a platform for German lawmakers to raise concerns about Tanzania’s domestic political and human-rights situation, prompting a broader debate about sovereignty, accountability and the conduct of international engagement.

President Dr Samia Suluhu Hassan’s rejection of what she considers foreign interference raises an important question: How can international partners scrutinise one another’s governance while respecting national sovereignty and the independence of domestic institutions?

On October 17, 2026, Deutsche Welle reported that two German lawmakers had raised concerns about alleged human-rights violations, restrictions on freedom of expression and reported deaths and disappearances in Tanzania.

These are serious matters that deserve evidence-based examination, appropriate responses and due process. Equally, allegations should not be treated as established facts without credible evidence.

The German Bundestag’s official delegation announcement names CDU/CSU’s Alexander Radwan as delegation leader, alongside Rolf Mützenich (SPD), Claudia Roth and Lena Gumnior (Greens), Katrin Fey (Left Party) and AfD representatives Malte Kaufmann and Stefan Keuter.

This politically diverse delegation did not represent a unanimous German position. Its members’ interventions should be assessed individually against evidence, records and consistency.

Claudia Roth, former Bundestag vice-president and federal culture commissioner, has faced domestic criticism over cultural and historical-memory controversies.

In 2024, Central Council of Jews president Josef Schuster warned that expanding Germany’s official remembrance framework to include colonial violence alongside Nazi crimes risked relativising the Holocaust if its unique significance was not preserved. Roth rejected the charge, insisting the Holocaust would remain central.

The dispute illustrates that Germany’s own approach to historical responsibility and public accountability remains contested.

Roth’s tenure also coincided with controversy at Documenta 15, where antisemitic imagery and the handling of complaints provoked criticism from Jewish organisations.

Separately, the Arolsen Archives faced allegations of workplace bullying, intimidation and sexism.

These were not allegations against Roth personally, and an independent investigation reported in August 2023 found no evidence of criminal or employment-law breaches by the Archives’ leadership, while recommending measures to rebuild staff trust.

The broader question is whether accountability, institutional credibility and due process are applied consistently at home and abroad.

Rolf Mützenich, a veteran SPD foreign-policy politician, faced a sharp partisan attack in May 2026 when FDP politician Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann called him a “Russian submarine” amid disagreements over relations with Moscow. The remark was an accusation, not evidence of Russian allegiance.

However, it demonstrates that German foreign-policy judgments are themselves fiercely contested. Such disagreements do not disqualify lawmakers from raising human-rights concerns, but their assessments should not be treated as unquestionable.

Katrin Fey also faced criticism after laughing during an Alice Weidel speech in the Bundestag concerning a grooming case involving the sexual exploitation of girls.

Fey subsequently explained publicly that her laughter targeted what she considered the AfD’s political framing, not the victims.

Her explanation deserves consideration, underscoring why political conduct must be assessed in context before moral judgments are made.

As delegation leader, Alexander Radwan also bears responsibility for ensuring constructive, proportionate engagement.

The delegation’s CDU/CSU, SPD, Green, Left Party and AfD members represent sharply differing positions on immigration, security, foreign policy and constitutional values.

Their criticisms therefore cannot automatically be equated with a unified German national position.

The central issue is not their right to speak, but whether their specific allegations were substantiated and their approach advanced meaningful dialogue, which as diplomats they ought to have this understanding.

A review on Germany’s handling of the Reichsbürger conspiracy case offers a relevant comparison.

On December 7, 2022, authorities conducted nationwide anti-terror raids involving thousands of police officers, arresting suspects accused of plotting to overthrow the constitutional government.

ALSO READ: Building our nation starts with respect

The investigation targeted the Reichsbürger movement, whose adherents reject the legitimacy of the modern German state.

Prosecutors alleged that a group around Heinrich XIII Prince Reuss planned to storm the Bundestag, detain political leaders and establish a new political order.

The defendants reportedly included former military personnel, a former AfD parliamentarian and individuals accused of organising parallel-state structures.

Weapons, ammunition and alleged efforts to acquire additional arms formed part of the prosecution’s case. Proceedings were divided among higher regional courts in Frankfurt, Stuttgart and Munich, involving approximately 26 defendants.

Trials began in 2024, examining communications, organisational structures and each defendant’s alleged role.

Reuters reported that the alleged plot involved replacing the existing government and installing Reuss as the movement’s symbolic leader.

By 19 May 2026, Frankfurt’s proceedings had reached their 127th hearing. Reuss’s defence questioned the proportionality of continued pretrial detention after many years in custody, prompting scrutiny of its duration.

These lengthy proceedings raise questions about proportionality, individual defence rights and the presumption of innocence, although their duration alone does not establish a violation of those rights.

That distinction is precisely the point. Germany asserts its authority to investigate grave threats to its constitutional order while relying on prosecutors and courts to determine guilt.

Therefore, Tanzania should be afforded the same basic respect for its institutions and legal processes.

German politicians may question whether Tanzania’s security measures and prosecutions satisfy dueprocess standards, but they should apply that scrutiny through evidence and principled engagement, rather than assuming that allegations against Tanzania are established facts while treating their own country’s security proceedings as necessarily justified.

The comparison does not establish that the two countries’ cases are factually equivalent. It establishes a standard of consistency: Allegations must be tested, defendants must receive due process, and the independence of courts must be protected from political pressure.

Neither national security nor political opposition should be used to prejudge a defendant’s guilt. President Samia’s defence of Tanzania’s sovereignty should be understood in that light.

Tanzania is an independent constitutional republic, not a subordinate administration awaiting approval from Berlin. Its government has a duty to protect public order and national security through lawful institutions.

At the same time, credible allegations of misconduct should be investigated and addressed transparently.

These obligations are compatible, not contradictory. Indeed, a government confident in its institutions should welcome evidence-based scrutiny while rejecting attempts to dictate outcomes. The Arusha Assembly was intended to advance cooperation among parliaments.

That objective cannot be achieved if international gatherings become theatres to assert political superiority. Tanzania has a right to insist that dialogue must rest on equality, mutual respect and recognition of constitutional independence.

Ultimately, the most persuasive defence of Tanzania is neither the dismissal of every critic nor the automatic defence of every government action.

It is a commitment to sovereign decision-making, credible legal processes and consistent standards for all countries.

Germany’s representatives are entitled to ask difficult questions. Tanzania is equally entitled to question their evidence, challenge their assumptions and demand respect for its institutions.

Sovereignty is not a privilege granted by foreign approval. It is a principle that international cooperation must respect.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *