Paradigm Initiative backs court challenge to Tanzania’s restriction of X platform
Digital rights organisation Paradigm Initiative has announced its support for a constitutional case before Tanzania’s High Court challenging restrictions on access to X, arguing that any limitations on digital platforms must comply with constitutional and human rights standards.
Paradigm Initiative has announced its support for an ongoing constitutional case challenging restrictions on access to X in Tanzania.
The case was filed in 2025 by Tanzanian lawyers Tito Elia Magoti and Kumbusho Dawson Kagine against the Minister for Communications and Information Technology, the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority, and the Attorney General.
In a statement, Paradigm Initiative said the case raises questions about the constitutional limits of state action affecting access to digital platforms and online communication spaces. The organisation argued that restrictions on widely used platforms should meet requirements of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
According to the applicants, access to X has been restricted in Tanzania since May 2025, leaving users largely dependent on virtual private networks (VPNs) to access the platform. The petition argues that the measures affect rights related to freedom of expression, access to information, and freedom of assembly protected under Tanzania’s Constitution.
The respondents have rejected those claims, arguing that the restrictions were imposed in accordance with Tanzanian law and were intended to protect public safety, public health, and public morals. They also maintain that the platform’s owner was notified and given an opportunity to comply with relevant legal requirements before the measures were introduced.
Paradigm Initiative said it supports the applicants’ position that the restrictions are unconstitutional and warned against measures that could result in disproportionate limitations on digital civic spaces.
The case remains before the High Court of Tanzania, where a ruling is expected to determine whether the restrictions are consistent with the country’s constitutional protections.
