Child safety in social media platforms

I have read about a case against Meta alleging that Facebook and Instagram were deliberately designed in ways that encouraged children and teenagers to spend excessive amounts of time on the platforms, while Meta allegedly knew about risks to young users and made misleading statements concerning their safety. It appears evidence was presented concerning Meta’s internal knowledge of harms to young users, which made the litigation particularly significant. Can one institute similar case in Tanzania against Meta? 

RG, Mwanza 

Thank you for your intriguing question. We have also followed up on the case regarding child protection against social media platforms owner, Meta. It should be noted, however, that such case did not ultimately produce a final judgment on the merits. Instead, the parties reached a huge settlement. Under the settlement, the respondent agreed to pay settlement amount and implement substantial changes to Facebook and Instagram aimed at protecting minors. The measures include stronger age verification mechanisms; limits on teenagers’ usage; restrictions on nighttime notifications and access; enhanced parental controls; restrictions on certain harmful content and features; and additional protections for teenage accounts. Notably, Meta did not admit wrongdoing. The settlement, therefore, should not be legally described as a Court finding that Meta was liable for harming children.

Regarding instituting a matter in Tanzania, Meta case does not itself automatically create a Tanzanian claim. Although a Tanzanian claimant could use the same factual evidence, they would have to establish liability under Tanzanian law. For Tanzania, some laws are relevant. For example, under the Personal Data Protection Act, 2022, if Meta collects, profiles, analyses or otherwise processes personal data of Tanzanian users, particularly children, the claimant could examine whether Meta complied with the Tanzanian requirements governing lawful processing; consent; processing of children’s personal data; transparency and information to data subjects; purpose limitation; data security obligations; and rights and remedies available to data subjects.

Similarly, the Electronic and Postal Communications Act and Electronic and Postal Communications (Online Content) Regulations expressly cover electronic media, including social media and applications.

It should, however, be noted that a Tanzanian Court would not automatically award damages merely because Meta’s conduct would violate a US personal data protection or consumer protection statute. You would need to identify the corresponding Tanzanian statutory obligation and establish its breach.

Last, though not exhaustive of what you would want to hear regarding this case, is the question of jurisdiction. Much as cyberspace knows no boundaries, it may not be enough to say that Tanzanians use Facebook and, therefore, Tanzania has jurisdiction over Meta. You would need to establish an appropriate jurisdictional connection between Meta, the conduct and Tanzania. Your lawyer can guide you further.

PMLs ownership in Tanzania

I am a South African citizen engaging in mining business. Upon review of Tanzania’s mining legal framework, I have noted there are various mineral rights under the law. One of them is Primary Mining Licence (PML). Can I apply for them or buy from the existing holders? Kindly guide me.

JD, South Africa

Generally, Primary Mining Licences (PMLs) are reserved for Tanzanian citizens or companies wholly owned by Tanzanian citizens and whose control is exercised in Tanzania by Tanzanians. A foreign citizen cannot therefore apply for, and be granted, a PML by the Mining Commission. Besides, simply incorporating a Tanzanian company and putting Tanzanian shareholders on paper does not meet compliance, for the law expressly looks at direct and indirect control. This is in accordance with section 9(2) of the Mining Act (the Act).

However, upon recommendation of a resident mines officer and upon its satisfaction that a PML holder needs technical support that cannot be obtained in Tanzania, the Mining Commission may allow the said PML holder to contract a foreigner for technical support (TS) through a technical support agreement (TSA). However, the TSA can only cover 10 PMLs.

The Act insofar as PMLs are concerned is supplemented with the Mining (Technical Support for PML Holders) Regulations, 2025 (the Regulations). The Regulations provide for such aspects as: registration of TSAs with the Mining Commission; definition of technical support; the relationship between the PML holder and TS provider (the parties); and revenue sharing between the parties. Having a TSA signed by the parties is not enough. The spirit of the restriction regarding PMLs ownership is to have Tanzanian citizens and entities actively participating in the mining operations. To this end, the provisions on revenue sharing under TSAs are critical.

Under the Regulations, the PML holder is entitled to not less than 30% of the gross revenue generated from mining operations, excluding royalties and other charges due to the Government regardless of operating costs incurred by the TS provider.

Regarding buying the PMLs from the existing holder, this is possible. However, there should be an agreement or arrangement to convert the PML into a Mining Licence, subject to the provisions relevant to application for and grant of a Mining Licence. In addition to this, the PML holder and the TS provider can agree to combine the PMLs for which the TS has been requested for purposes of transferring the PML to the TS provider’s company or their joint venture company and agree on the revenue sharing.

Witness against spouses 

My husband is currently charged with an offence. I was not involved in the incident, but the police have asked me to give evidence against him. My husband says that because I am his wife, I cannot be forced to testify against him and that I should simply refuse to go to Court.

PM, Kilimanjaro

This is undoubtedly a difficult and emotional position to be in. Being asked to give evidence against someone you love and have a marital relationship with can create a serious conflict between your personal loyalty to your spouse and your legal obligations.

Under section 138 of the Evidence Act, a spouse is generally a competent but not compellable witness for the prosecution. This means that spouses can legally testify against each other, but ordinarily cannot be forced to do so. There are, however, some exceptions. A spouse becomes competent and compellable where the accused is charged with offences against morality, including rape, abduction and sexual abuse. This also applies where the offence affects the person or property of the spouse or the children of either spouse. Therefore, your husband is not entirely correct. Marriage does not automatically prevent you from testifying against him. Whether you can be compelled depends on the particular offence with which he is charged.