Families of people killed during security operations in Tanzania and Uganda are still awaiting justice, while governments control the inquiries meant to establish what happened and who should answer for it.
Development Diaries reports that one year after deadly violence followed Tanzania’s October 2025 general election, no government official has been criminally investigated over allegations that security personnel used excessive force.
A government-appointed commission reported that 518 people died across 11 regions and presented its findings to President Samia Suluhu Hassan on 23 April, 2026, but the full report remains unpublished.
The commission, chaired by retired Chief Justice Mohamed Othman, had its deadline extended twice and barred the media from attending witness testimonies in January 2026, citing privacy concerns.
In August, Hassan inaugurated another commission to identify those who planned, funded, coordinated or carried out the violence.
Now the public is being asked to accept that an inquiry established the scale of the deaths without access to the report containing its findings.
Tanzania’s Commissions of Inquiry Act makes this possible under Section 21(3), which gives the president power to withhold a commissioner’s report from publication.
Uganda presents another troubling example, with acting Defence Public Information Director Col Chris Magezi saying that retired Lt Gen Peter Elwelu would face the General Court Martial following conflicting accounts of how he entered custody in Soroti City on 2 November 2026.
Before his arrest, military chief Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba accused Elwelu of treacherous activities after retirement, stripped him of his lieutenant general rank, and announced the arrest of 20 former soldiers linked to him.
The allegations concern Elwelu’s conduct after leaving the military, but his record in uniform raises another question that remains unanswered.
In November 2016, a joint force of the army and police stormed King Charles Wesley Mumbere’s palace in Kasese, leaving at least 100 people dead. The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court later reported credible information that Ugandan security forces committed multiple killings during the operation, including the killing of eight volunteer Royal Guards by soldiers under Elwelu’s command, then a brigadier general.
No investigation into the massacre has produced a domestic prosecution to date. While Elwelu now faces military proceedings over alleged disloyalty, the deaths of civilians during an operation under his command remain without a comparable judicial process.
In Ghana, questions about transparency have emerged around a different executive inquiry, as Vincent Assafuah, the New Patriotic Party Member of Parliament for Old Tafo, declined an invitation from President John Mahama to participate in an investigation into alleged irregularities surrounding the acquisition of visas for the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
Assafuah questioned the committee’s transparency, arguing that the public had not been given information about its membership, mandate or proceedings.
He maintained that no one should adjudicate their own cause, raising concerns about whether an executive-appointed inquiry can command public confidence when its composition and terms are unclear.
The three cases differ in their circumstances and consequences, but expose a common weakness in how governments handle allegations involving the state or people connected to it.
An executive establishes an inquiry, determines its mandate and composition, and often controls its timetable and publication. Without independent investigation and public scrutiny, an inquiry can become the end of the process rather than the beginning of accountability.
In Tanzania, the law expressly allows the president to withhold a commission’s report. In Uganda, the contrast between proceedings against Elwelu over alleged disloyalty and the absence of a domestic prosecution over the Kasese killings raises questions about which offences the state is prepared to pursue.
As for Ghana’s visa inquiry, it shows why the public needs to know who is investigating, what they are authorised to examine and how their findings will be made available.
A commission of inquiry can establish facts and make recommendations, but it cannot determine individual criminal guilt or replace a criminal investigation.
Article 4 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights protects the right to life, while Articles 6 and 2(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Tanzania and Uganda are parties, protect the right to life and require effective remedies for violations.
The consequences fall heavily on families still waiting for answers. In Tanzania, the 518 reported deaths represent hundreds of families seeking to know how their relatives died and whether anyone will be held responsible.
Human Rights Watch documented the killing of 31 people who were not participating in protests and received credible information about another 19 such deaths.
In Uganda, widows and children of those killed in Kasese have waited ten years for an investigation capable of establishing responsibility and opening the way for justice or compensation.
Across these cases, families with limited access to legal support and public information are left with inquiries that offer few answers.
Tanzanians seeking answers should submit written requests to the Office of the President for publication of the commission’s report, identifying the regions where their relatives were killed.
In Uganda, Kasese residents and the Rwenzururu kingdom should approach the Uganda Human Rights Commission to seek an investigation into the 2016 operation, while in Ghana, citizens should ask Parliament’s Youth and Sports Committee to exercise its oversight powers and examine the visa inquiry.
The institutions responsible must equally move beyond announcements. Tanzania’s Director of Public Prosecutions should state within 30 days whether criminal investigations have been opened into the 518 deaths, while parliament should amend Section 21(3) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act to remove the power to withhold reports involving loss of life.
For its part, Uganda’s Directorate of Public Prosecutions should disclose whether the Kasese killings file remains open and, if it has been closed, explain why, just as Ghana’s Office of the President should publish the membership and terms of reference of the visa inquiry committee before it submits its findings.
Families who have lost relatives deserve answers, and allegations of serious human rights violations require investigations capable of establishing responsibility and securing justice.
