RC orders buses back to terminal

I operate long-distance buses from Dar es Salaam. Some years ago, bus operators were allowed, subject to prescribed conditions, to establish private terminals where passengers could board. We complied with the requirements and invested substantial amounts of money constructing passenger lounges, offices, toilets, parking areas and other facilities. We are now being directed by the Regional Commissioner (RC) to stop operating from these private terminals and have all journeys start and end at Magufuli Bus Terminal. We respect Government directives, but what happens to the millions we invested after being allowed to establish these facilities? More importantly, does the RC have legal powers to issue such an order and can an earlier Government approval simply be reversed?

KM, Dar es Salaam

Your concern raises an interesting question about difference between a government official having general supervisory powers and having specific legal authority to regulate a particular activity.

Under article 61(4) of the Constitution, an RC is responsible for supervising the discharge of the functions of the Government within his region and exercises powers conferred upon him by a written law. The Regional Administration Act, Cap. 97 also provides the statutory framework for the functions of RCs. However, this does not necessarily mean that every announcement or directive of an RC automatically creates a new legal obligation. Where the Parliament has entrusted a particular regulatory function to another authority, that statutory framework must also be considered.

In the case of long-distance buses, LATRA has a statutory responsibility for licensing and regulating road transport services. LATRA has publicly stated that buses are issued with schedules specifying the stations from which their journeys should start and end. There are also applicable local government by-laws governing bus stands.

The Ubungo Municipal Council Bus Stands and Motor Vehicle Parking By-laws, 2022, for example, regulate the places from which buses may operate and, importantly, contemplate special permission being granted for buses not to commence journeys from designated bus stands. Therefore, the legality of any private terminal cannot be determined merely by looking at the RC’s latest directive; one would need to examine the operator’s licence, the approval previously granted, the conditions attached to it and the applicable by-laws.

Your investment argument is equally interesting. However, it should be noted that Government decisions are not necessarily frozen forever merely because businesses have invested money in reliance upon them. Public authorities may change regulatory arrangements where the law permits. Nevertheless, any subsequent decision must itself have a proper legal foundation and comply with applicable administrative law requirements. An operator would, therefore, need to carefully examine whether the previous permission was temporary or conditional, whether it could be revoked, who had authority to revoke it and whether the required procedure was followed.

Interestingly, this issue has already reached the Court. A constitutional case has recently been filed in the High Court challenging provisions requiring long-distance buses to use designated terminals and restricting operations from private stations. Among the provisions being challenged are aspects of the Ubungo Municipal Council Bus Stands and Motor Vehicle Parking By-laws, 2022 and the Transport Licensing Act.

As of today, the case is pending and the Court has not determined the merits. The eventual decision may therefore provide important guidance on some of these questions.

Mandatory travel insurance

I am a British citizen planning to visit Tanzania for a two-week holiday in November. I already have comprehensive annual travel insurance from the UK which covers medical treatment, emergency evacuation, repatriation and lost luggage worldwide, including Tanzania. My travel agent has now informed me that Tanzania has introduced mandatory travel insurance. Why should I be forced to buy insurance twice when I already have better coverage? 

PH, London

We understand why you may feel that you are being insured twice. The Insurance (Inbound Travel Insurance) Regulations, 2026, GN No. 256 of 2026 (the Regulations) have introduced mandatory inbound travel insurance for foreigners entering Mainland Tanzania through airports, seaports and land borders. A foreigner falling within the Regulations must possess a valid inbound travel insurance policy, which can be purchased before travelling or at the point of entry. More importantly, a foreigner who enters Mainland Tanzania without the required policy shall be denied entry.

Your existing UK policy, irrespective of how comprehensive it may be, does not appear to substitute the prescribed inbound travel insurance. The Regulations provide that the inbound insurance is to be issued by the National Insurance Corporation (NIC) or another registered insurer operating in partnership with NIC. The mandatory policy covers, amongst others, emergency medical treatment, medical evacuation, repatriation and loss of luggage. Therefore, there may indeed be an overlap between what your UK insurer already covers and what you will be required to purchase in Tanzania.

Dispute resolution in extractive sector

I am a director of a Mauritian company. Our company intends to invest in Tanzania’s extractive sector. Given Tanzania’s legal framework regarding settlement of disputes arising from natural resources, what mechanisms or structured exceptions exist to ensure international arbitration remains a viable option?

DM, Mauritius 

The Tanzanian legal landscape concerning foreign arbitration in the extractive sector has been marked by significant restrictions introduced in 2017, which sought to mandate that disputes related to natural resources be settled by judicial or arbitral forums in Tanzania and in accordance with Tanzanian laws. This approach created a challenging environment for investments, especially considering that foreign investors traditionally rely on neutral international arbitration forums to safeguard their investments against regulatory or contractual risks.

However, recent developments indicate that the Tanzanian government has recognized the necessity of balancing national sovereignty and the need to attract foreign investment, leading to exceptions to the 2017 restrictions. The recent amendments provide that an agreement relating to the extraction of natural resources may provide for a special arrangement relating to proceedings, the seat of arbitration or jurisdiction. However, such an agreement must have been approved by Cabinet. Should this requirement be satisfied, such restrictions should not prejudice the implementation of the agreed arrangement.

In these circumstances, for a prospective investor, the strategy should involve proactive engagement with the government to negotiate clear, enforceable arbitration clauses that explicitly incorporate these permitted exceptions.