Corruption is pervasive throughout Tanzanian society and is a serious problem across all sectors of the economy. The most affected sectors are government procurement, land administration, taxation and customs.
Petty corruption in dealings with traffic, customs and immigration officers deters investment.
Corruption is criminalised under the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Act (PCCA), which covers attempted corruption, extortion, passive and active bribery, money laundering and bribery of a foreign official.
A range of legislations cover other corruption offences, but anti-corruption laws are applied inconsistently and are poorly enforced.
Gift-giving and the use of facilitation payments for the purpose of inducing corrupt behavior are illegal under the PCCA.
However, companies should note these practices can be commonly encountered when doing business in Tanzania.


The Tanzanian judicial system is tainted by corruption and is subject to executive influence. The judiciary is underfunded, corrupt and inefficient, especially in the lower courts. Court clerks and magistrates are known to accept bribes to open/misdirect cases or to altogether determine a case’s outcome, respectively (HRR 2013). Accordingly, the degree to which the system can provide an expeditious and fair trial is questionable (BTI 2014). Companies should be aware the corruption and inherent inefficiency within the judiciary pose a hindrance for settling commercial disputes in Tanzania (ICS 2013). Equally, companies do not consider the Tanzanian legal framework to be efficient in settling disputes or in challenging government regulations (GCR 2014-2015).


Corruption and impunity are pervasive in the Tanzanian police force (HRR 2013).
Foreign companies have identified petty corruption among traffic police as an obstacle to investment (ICS 2013). Additionally, companies identify Tanzania as performing insufficiently in relation to the reliability of police services to protect from crime (GCR 2014-2015).


Bureaucratic procedures for licenses and permits in Tanzania are burdensome, time-consuming and prone to corruption. There are instances of businesspeople paying bribes to public officials in return for expedited processing (ICS 2013).
Additionally, businesses consider the prevalence of irregular payments and bribes within public utilities in Tanzania as one of the worst in the world (GCR 2014-2015).
Corruption within the state-run Tanzania Electricity Supply Company (Tanesco) is endemic (BTI 2014).
Nevertheless, accessing public services (such as electricity) in Tanzania is still considered less burdensome than the regional average (DB 2015).


The land administration in Tanzania can be subject to corrupt behaviour. There are different laws in Tanzania that recognise and enforce secured interests in property, both movable and real, but there is no single comprehensive law to secure property rights in Tanzania (ICS 2013).
Even though property rights and property acquisition are legally guaranteed in principle under different laws, corruption and inefficiency within the land administration and the judicial system limit their enforceability (BTI 2014). There also exists an informal system of land distribution in urban areas, leading to increasing numbers of disputes. This environment can potentially trigger opportunities for corruption in this sector.

In the latest corruption scandal within the Tanzanian government, the Land and Housing Minister was dismissed for wrongly accepting a large sum of money from a businessperson (BBC News, Dec. 2014).


Officials in the Tanzanian tax department reportedly solicit bribes when assessing taxes. Companies single out irregular payments and bribes in annual tax payments as a significant issue in Tanzania, with the country ranking among the worst in the world in the category (GCR 2014-2015). The Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) has recently stepped up anti-corruption efforts through the development of strict and practical controls to improve revenue collection and service delivery (Daily News, Mar. 2015). In 2014, Tanzania made paying taxes more complicated for companies by introducing an excise tax on money transfers (DB 2015).


Customs clearance in Tanzania is marred by corruption, and foreign companies have identified petty corruption among Tanzanian customs officers as an obstacle to investment (ICS 2013).
Tanzanian transport companies pay almost USD 13,000 a month in bribes to authorities such as police and customs officials to avoid unnecessary delays, harassment and payment of penalties (TI & EAT 2012).

Companies should note that time-consuming bureaucracy related to trade across borders opens the way for public officials to demand bribes in Tanzania (GETR 2014). Trade is impeded by customs procedures that lack efficiency, and importing and exporting requires time-consuming paperwork to clear goods at the border; corruption and bribery in these processes sometimes occur (GETR 2014). However, in 2014 Tanzania made trading across borders easier by upgrading infrastructure at the port of Dar es Salaam, thereby slightly countering the risk of corruption (DB 2015).


Tanzanian public procurement is rife with corruption. Businesses point to government officials often favouring well-connected companies and individuals when awarding contracts, and public funds are sometimes diverted to companies, individuals or groups due to corruption (GCR 2014-2015).

In response to a recent string of corruption and abuse of office in the absence of a clear definition of conflict of interest, Tanzania is working on a new law to ban elected leaders and civil servants from holding jobs in the private sector (Business Insider, Oct. 2014). In a 2015 crackdown, the director of Tanzania’s port authority was suspended for for violating procurement procedures (Africa Report, Feb. 2015).
Additionally, in late-2014, Tanzania’s Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) barred 19 firms from competing for government contracts after the firms were found to have engaged in corrupt practices (All Africa, Oct. 2014). To combat corrupt and counterproductive practices, the Tanzanian government joined the Construction Sector Transparency Initiative (CoST) to enhance accountability and transparency within the sector. Firms are recommended to use a specialised public procurement due diligence tool to mitigate corruption risks associated with public procurement in Tanzania.


The mining sector in Tanzania, closely tied to matters over land and investment, is prone corruption (BTI 2014). Most corruption investigations by the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Bureau (PCCB) have been into government involvement in the mining and energy sectors (HRR 2013).
A 2014 corruption scandal rocked the Tanzanian government following revelations that over $120m in public funds were siphoned off and directed to off-shore accounts held by businesspeople and public officials through the award of energy contracts (Guardian, Nov. 2014).
Tanzania’s regulatory capacity in the mining sector is undermined by state functionaries who are involved in rent-seeking networks. In addition, there is a significant lack of transparency around the confidential Mining Development Agreements between foreign companies and the government, often involving preferential treatment (U4, Mar. 2014).

Corruption allegations have recently resulted in Tanzania’s energy minister to resign from office, the third to lose job over the same scandal involving the fraudulent transfer of public funds to a private company (Reuters, Jan. 2015).


Tanzania’s comprehensive legal framework to counter corruption is poorly enforced. The Anti-Money Laundering Act combats capital flight and financing of terrorism activities. The Prevention and Combating of Corruption Act (PCCA) criminalises attempted corruption, extortion, passive and active bribery, money laundering and bribery of a foreign official. Corruption is designated as an economic offence, and provisions exist for imprisonment, but there are no financial penalties for economic crimes except for the recovery of assets.
Other legislation also regulates against corruption, including the National Elections Act, the Political Parties Act, the Public Finance Act and the Election Expenses Act. The Public Leaders Code of Ethics Act and the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act attempt to curb abuse of power by public officials. Tanzania is a member of various international anti-corruption institutions, governed by different legal frameworks. No mechanism requires public officers to disclose their assets, and there are no restrictions on the positions public officials can hold in the private sector. Tanzania does not have a right to information act, which is paramount for transparency of government through free public access to information (HRR 2013).
The Public Services Act 2011, which, among other things, requires every institution to make enforceable codes of conduct for its employees (LHRC 2011).

Tanzania has ratified the United Nations Convention against Corruption and the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption. See ISS Africa’s overview of Tanzanian corruption legislation or access the Lexadin World Law Guide for a collection of legislation in Tanzania.


The Constitution of Tanzania provides for freedom of speech but does not explicitly provide for freedom of the press (FitW 2014);
17 laws encourage self-censorship and limit the ability of the media to function effectively (FotP 2014).
Some instances of harassment towards journalists investigating sensitive subjects, such as corruption and abuse of power, have been reported. Furthermore, some journalists accept bribes either to publish or to ignore certain information. However, the media on the mainland is active and is said to express a wide range of views, while most media outlets on Zanzibar are controlled by the government (HRR 2013).
Tanzania’s press environment is considered ‘partly free’ (FotP 2014).





StanBic Bank, a Tanzanian division of Standard Bank, a UK listed company, is ordered in the UK Court to pay penalties of US$ 32,2 million for a case centred on $6 million in bribes paid to Tanzanian officials.

British court approves landmark plea deal over Standard Bank bribery.

A judge approved Britain’s first deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), a new type of plea deal, on Monday in a case centred on $6 million in bribes paid to Tanzanian officials by the Tanzanian unit of South Africa’s Standard Bank (SBKJ.J).

Under the deal with the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), the London arm of Standard Bank, which worked with the bank’s Tanzanian subsidiary on a 2012-2013 transaction to raise $600 million (£399 million) for the Tanzanian government, faces penalties totalling $32.2 million after admitting to failing to prevent bribery.

Introduced into English law last year, a DPA is a court-approved deal under which a company charged with wrongdoing agrees to sanctions that can include fines and additional supervision, in return for legal proceedings being suspended.

The penalties in this case include a $16.8 million fine to be paid to the SFO, a $6 million fine plus interest of over $1 million to be paid to the government of Tanzania, and $8.4 million in disgorgement of profits.

London-based Standard Bank Plc has since changed its name to ICBC Standard Bank following the acquisition of a controlling stake by China’s ICBC earlier this year.

The new DPA procedure is seen as a potentially useful tool for British law enforcers to tackle corporate wrongdoing as prosecuting companies in Britain can be very costly and complex.

“This landmark DPA will serve as a template for future agreements,” Director of the SFO, David Green, said in a statement after the agreement was approved by senior High Court judge Brian Leveson at a public hearing.

Handing down his judgement after hearing a detailed account of the facts and of how the SFO had arrived at those figures, Leveson said the DPA was “fair, reasonable and proportionate” and was in the public interest.

Lawyers predicted that the DPA would be the first of many.

“There has been fairly widespread concern that the U.S.-style plea deals present a way for big companies to simply ‘buy their way out of trouble’,” said Barry Vitou, partner and head of Global Corporate Crime at law firm Pinsent Masons.

“The bar in the UK will, however, be set much higher. A key difference here is that judges will independently assess DPAs, and will only sign off on them if they are in the interests of justice,” he said.


The case stems from a sovereign note private placement undertaken in 2012-2013 by Stanbic Bank Tanzania Ltd and London-based Standard Bank Plc to raise $600 million for the Tanzanian government as part of its five-year development plan.

In a lengthy statement setting out the details, SFO counsel Edward Garnier told the court that Stanbic and Standard Bank had initially quoted a fee of 1.4 percent of gross proceeds raised, but matters did not progress until that went up to 2.4 percent.

Evidence showed that the additional 1 percent, worth $6 million, was paid to a “local partner”, a Tanzanian company called EGMA, for supposed consultancy services.

These arrangements were made by Bashir Awale, then chief executive of Stanbic, and Shose Sinare, then the unit’s head of corporate and investment banking.  Awale was later sacked, while Sinare resigned.

EGMA’s chairman and one of its three shareholders and directors was Harry Kitilya, then head of Tanzania’s tax authority, while its managing director was Fratern Mboya, ex-CEO of Tanzania’s Capital Markets and Securities Authority.

Garnier said the purpose of the $6 million was to induce government officials to show favour to Stanbic in appointing it to conduct the private placement, and to reward those whom Awale and Sinare believed had been induced to act improperly.

The money was deposited into an EGMA account in March 2013, and withdrawn by Mboya in large cash amounts within days. Garnier told the court the cash has never been traced.

The cash withdrawals raised suspicions within Stanbic Tanzania, with four employees raising concerns. After those were escalated to head office in South Africa and to London, the UK-based subsidiary reported itself to law enforcement agencies.

Standard Bank Group said in a statement it had fully cooperated with investigators from the outset.

“The group and its subsidiaries take the risk of corruption very seriously and deeply regret that this issue arose on a transaction with which they were involved,” it said.

Kitilya resigned from the tax authority in December 2013, while Mboya died in July that year.

ICBC, which acquired 60 percent of London-based Standard Bank in February, had no direct interest in the bank at the time of the corrupt transaction, and had no involvement in the incident in any way.
The Judgement:

We, the People of Tanzania, rely on our new President and also overseas Authorities, such as the Serious Fraud Office in England to catch and punish international companies operating dishonestly in Africa !  




President John Magufuli has ordered a cancellation of this year’s Independence Day celebrations in yet another shock move aimed at reigning in unnecessary public expenditure.

In a statement yesterday, the President said funds meant for the Uhuru fete would instead be used for a major clean-up campaign aimed at stemming the spread of cholera in the country.

Tanzania celebrates her independence from British rule annually on December 9.

“It’s so shameful that we are spending huge amounts of money to celebrate 54 years of self-rule while our people are dying of cholera,” the President said in a statement read by the Chief Secretary Ombeni Sefue.



Just three days after taking the presidential oath, President Magufuli paid a surprise visit without anyone’s knowledge to the Ministry of Finance and Muhimbili National Hospital discovering poor hygienic conditions, lack of functioning essential equipment and lack of drugs too.

He dissolved the health board of it and also transferred the executive director.

Nnauye said the latest actions of president were in line with his promise of restoring confidence in public institutions.

He added further Magufuli is regarded as a no-nonsense man from his past ministerial work. He was a hardworking cabinet official and would bring to end the usual practise of work in public sector.

Prior to this the policies of CCM were poorly implemented and now the new president has started on a good note to bring change in the system. He wants the public office to work for the time they are assigned.

Meanwhile, the president has issued a directive too that restricts public officials from traveling abroad at the expense of taxpayer.

The move has been welcomed by supporters of CCM saying it will help the country saving drain of public finance. Also, the officials should visit the villages instead of traveling overseas as 70 percent of the population reside outside the cities and towns. This will help the citizens in having proper solutions to their challenges.