Mandatory electronic payments

I recently heard that the Government has issued a new Order requiring certain payments to be made through electronic means instead of cash. I usually make payments for goods and services in cash, and I would like to understand how these new requirements will affect me. My concern is that electronic payments, especially through mobile money services and other payment platforms, usually attract transaction charges or deductions. If the law now requires customers to use electronic payment methods, will customers still be required to pay these additional charges? Has the Government provided any measures to remove or reduce such charges?

RM, Dar

Your question relates to the Electronic Transactions (Mandatory Electronic Payments for Specified Transactions) Order, 2026 (the Order), which was issued by the Minister for Finance under section 13(2) of the Electronic Transactions Act. The Order came into operation on 1 July 2026 and introduced mandatory electronic payments for specified transactions.

The Order requires payments relating to specified transactions and sectors to be made or received through approved electronic payment methods. These include mobile money, bank transfers, electronic funds transfers, payment cards, electronic wallets, point of sale devices, internet or mobile banking and the Government electronic payment system. The requirement applies to various sectors, including public transport services, educational institutions, hotels, restaurants, tourism-related services, property transactions, motor vehicle transactions, shopping malls, filling stations and certain agricultural activities. Therefore, whether a person must make a payment electronically will depend on the nature of the transaction and whether it falls within the categories covered by the Order. We must say that the Order covers quite a wide range of transactions and sectors.

Regarding transaction charges, electronic payment platforms may impose service fees or deductions depending on the payment method used and the terms applicable to that service. At present, the Order does not provide for the removal of such charges or expressly state that they must be borne by a particular party. The applicable charges will, therefore, continue to depend on the payment service provider’s terms and any guidance that may be issued by the relevant authorities. It is a valid concern that you have raised and since the Orders enforcement begins on 1 January 2027 (unless that date is extended), there is time for your questions to be considered.

Hateful online comments

I am due to marry the love of my life in a few weeks’ time. As part of our wedding preparations, our Master of Ceremonies interviewed us about how we met, what we love about each other and how excited we were to begin our married life together. The interview was later posted on social media. Instead of congratulating us, many people turned the comment section into a platform for attacking my fiancée’s appearence. They mocked her, describing her as ugly, overweight and unworthy of marrying me. Some commented, “This man deserves someone much prettier,” while others wrote, “He can still change his mind before the wedding.” Many ridiculed her teeth and facial features, with some saying she looked old enough to be my mother and others questioning how someone like me could choose to marry her. The comments have deeply affected her. She barely sleeps, avoids social media and no longer enjoys planning our wedding. Watching the woman I love suffer because of the cruelty of strangers is heart-breaking. Can people really use social media to say such cruel things about another person without facing any legal consequences?

GK, Mwanza

We are sorry that happened to you and your fiancée. The law recognises that freedom of expression carries responsibilities. While people are free to express their opinions online, that freedom does not extend to using social media as a tool to harass, intimidate or emotionally abuse others. Section 23 of the Cybercrimes Act specifically creates the offence of cyberbullying. It provides that a person shall not initiate or send an electronic communication using a computer system with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass or cause emotional distress to another person. A person convicted of the offence is liable to a fine of not less than TZS 5M, imprisonment for a term of not less than 3 years, or both.

Whether particular comments amount to cyberbullying will depend on the facts of each case. However, where social media users post comments whose purpose is to ridicule, humiliate or emotionally torment another person, especially where those comments cause obvious psychological or emotional harm, the conduct may fall within the scope of section 23. The Cybercrimes Act also provides a practical remedy for dealing with unlawful online content. Under section 45, an affected person may issue a take-down notification requiring the relevant service provider to remove unlawful material. If the service provider fails to act, the matter may be referred to the competent authority, which may order the content to be removed or take other lawful measures. In these circumstances, your fiancée may seek further legal advice from your attorney, so the available criminal and civil remedies can be obtained.

Imitation of unregistered well-known brand

I am a director of a premium South African coffee brand and presently in Dar es Salaam. We have been in operation globally since 2018 and currently have millions of social media followers and features prominently in international travel magazines, but have no physical shops or trademark registrations in Tanzania. In early 2025, a local Tanzanian entrepreneur noticed the brand’s international success. They quickly filed a trademark application and secured registration of the exact same name and logo for ‘coffee and cafe services.’ We have recently decided to open our flagship East African cafe in Arusha. Upon arrival, we received a cease and desist letter from the local entrepreneur, demanding heavy licensing fees or a total brand shutdown. We find ourselves in a difficult predicament and request your counsel regarding this dispute.

JM, Dar

While our laws usually grant ownership to whoever registers first, that title becomes invalid if obtained unlawfully. Specifically, a trademark cannot be legally registered if it imitates a brand that is already well-known in Tanzania for similar products. Because of this, a local Tanzanian entrepreneur’s early registration can be overturned if it violates well-known mark protections. However, the burden is on you to prove your brand holds that special status locally. In practice, establishing that a mark is ‘well-known’ without actual local sales is highly challenging in Tanzanian Courts, as judges heavily prioritize local market evidence over international reputation. You can consult local counsel for further guidance.