The European Union has started a process that may impose more sanctions against Tanzania

Responding to the Embassy of Tanzania’s Note Verbale dated 25 November 2025.

1. “The Government is concerned the EU did not give it an opportunity to present its side.”

Rebuttal:

A government that shuts down domestic media, censors all journalism about the October 29–Nov 3 killings, blocks observers, and arrests witnesses cannot claim it is being denied an opportunity to speak. The EU hearing exists precisely because Tanzania has refused to allow free reporting or independent investigations internally.

What the government calls “not given an opportunity” is actually:
•victims not being allowed to speak,
•civil society being threatened,
•opposition leaders being detained, and
•state machinery blocking truth-finding.

The EU cannot wait for a regime that is actively suppressing evidence.

2. “*Proceeding without Tanzania’s views is inconsistent with the Cotonou Agreement and partnership dialogue.”*

Rebuttal:

The Cotonou/OACPS–EU framework does not oblige the EU to seek permission from a state before condemning killings or human rights violations. Dialogue is not a shield against accountability.

The government selectively quotes “dialogue” while ignoring:
•human rights clauses of the same agreement,
•obligations to prevent killings,
•obligations to protect political rights,
•the fact that dialogue does not supersede fundamental rights.

The EU is fully within its legal and moral mandate to deliberate on mass atrocities without waiting for perpetrators to dictate the schedule.

3. “*Natural justice requires hearing both sides before conclusions are drawn.”*

Rebuttal:

Natural justice begins at home.
If Tanzania respected this principle:
•protesters would not have been shot,
•detainees would not be held incommunicado,
•Tundu Lissu would not be isolated under CCTV surveillance,
•journalists would not be threatened,
•families of victims would not be denied information about their loved ones.

A government committing violations cannot invoke “natural justice” only when facing international scrutiny, while denying the same rights to its own citizens.

4. “*The EU risks relying on unverified and one-sided narratives.”*

Rebuttal:

This claim collapses instantly under scrutiny.

The evidence of abuses is:
•video-recorded,
•geo-verified,
•documented by hospitals treating gunshot victims,
•supported by eyewitnesses,
•corroborated by international organizations,
•acknowledged even by government insiders who have fled.

The only “unverified narrative” is the government’s shifting explanations, including:
•denying deaths,
•then admitting casualties,
•then blaming “outsiders”,
•then blaming “opposition incitement”,
•then claiming “no protests were authorized”.

None of these contradictions discredit the documented facts of killings.

5. “*Tanzania has established a National Commission of Enquiry.”*

Rebuttal:

The government is asking the world to trust a Commission that:
•has no publicly released terms of reference,
•is not independent of the Executive,
•excludes victims, opposition, civil society, and independent observers,
•lacks transparency,
•has historically been used to bury cases.

Calling this Commission “independent” is misleading.
It is not credible by international standards (UN, AU, ACHPR) and cannot replace an impartial investigation.

6. “*Tanzania remains committed to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.”*

Rebuttal:

Actions matter more than words.

No democratic government:
•shoots unarmed civilians,
•detains elected leaders for political reasons,
•blocks opposition rallies nationwide,
•manipulates the media through threats,
•invokes cybercrime laws to arrest group admins,
•shuts down the internet during political crises.

Commitment to human rights cannot coexist with extrajudicial killings and systematic repression.

This statement is diplomatic theatre, not reality.

7. “*The Embassy requests rescheduling of the EU plenary session.”*

Rebuttal:

This request is a delay tactic designed to buy political time, not a genuine procedural complaint.

Authoritarian governments always:
•delay hearings,
•demand more “dialogue”,
•ask for “balanced information”,
•request postponements until pressure fades.

The EU should not reschedule anything.
Victims did not get “rescheduling”.
Families burying loved ones did not get “dialogue”.

If the government wants to present its case, it can send representatives.
Nothing stops them.

8. “*Ensure Members of Parliament receive accurate and balanced information.”*

Rebuttal:

The Embassy is essentially asking:

“Do not believe the victims’ testimonies. Believe only us.”

Balanced information does not mean:
•suppressing independent data,
•sidelining civil society,
•diminishing the voices of survivors,
•replacing facts with state propaganda.

If the government wants “balance”, let it:
•release the detainees,
•allow independent investigators in,
•open the hospitals and mortuaries to scrutiny,
•stop intimidating witnesses.

You cannot demand “balance” while violently controlling all information channels at home.

9. “*Tanzania values its longstanding partnership with the EU.”*

Rebuttal:

Partnership requires:
•honesty,
•transparency,
•respect for human life,
•cooperation with international norms.

A government cannot openly violate human rights and simultaneously invoke “partnership” as a shield against accountability.
Partnership is not a blank cheque.
It comes with standards.

*CONCLUSION:*
A DIPLOMATIC NOTE THAT EXPOSES MORE THAN IT PROTECTs

The Note Verbale is:
•legally weak,
•morally hollow,
•diplomatically evasive,
•procedurally manipulative,
•politically desperate.

International partners should treat it for what it is:
an attempt to obstruct scrutiny of state-perpetrated atrocities.

*The European Parliament must proceed with its hearing, deliberate independently, and place the protection of human life above governmental sensitivities.*