Dar es Salaam, Tanzania —
Tanzanian authorities have imposed a nighttime curfew in the country’s commercial capital, Dar es Salaam, after violent clashes broke out during Wednesday’s general election, which observers say was overshadowed by the exclusion of key opposition candidates.

The curfew order, announced by Inspector General of Police Camillus Wambura, will remain in effect “until calm is fully restored.” Security forces have been deployed across major intersections and polling centers after crowds took to the streets protesting alleged irregularities and the disqualification of opposition contenders.

President Samia Suluhu Hassan, who is widely expected to win reelection, has called for calm and urged citizens “to respect the democratic process and await official results.” Her ruling party, Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM), remains dominant after the main opposition party, CHADEMA, and its leader Tundu Lissu were barred from participating earlier this year.

According to eyewitness accounts, police used tear gas and water cannons to disperse protesters in several neighborhoods of Dar es Salaam and Zanzibar City. Opposition activists claimed that several people were injured, though official casualty figures have not been confirmed.

The election was already controversial after Tanzania’s National Electoral Commission disqualified CHADEMA and the Alliance for Change and Transparency (ACT-Wazalendo) for refusing to sign the electoral code of conduct, effectively leaving the CCM without major challengers.

International observers, including representatives from the African Union and the East African Community, reported isolated incidents of unrest and ballot delays but stopped short of declaring widespread fraud. Civil society groups, however, expressed concern that the absence of opposition voices could undermine the legitimacy of the outcome.

President Hassan, who became Tanzania’s first female leader in 2021 following the death of former President John Magufuli, has portrayed her campaign as one of continuity, national unity, and economic stability. Yet, critics argue that her government’s tightening control over political space and media freedom signals a drift toward authoritarianism.

Results from the presidential and parliamentary races are expected to be announced in the coming days.

Voting took place across the country’s 30 regions and on the semi autonomous archipelago of Zanzibar, where residents are also choosing a regional president and members of the island’s House of Representatives. Nationally, voters are electing a president and 400 members of parliament, in a contest that analysts say could further consolidate the ruling party’s grip on power.

The election, however, has drawn criticism from both local and international observers after the electoral commission disqualified the main opposition party, CHADEMA, in April. The commission accused the party of refusing to sign the national electoral code of conduct  a move CHADEMA dismissed as politically motivated.

The party’s leader, Tundu Lissu, remains on trial for treason, charges he has denied, calling them “an attempt to silence dissent.” Lissu, who survived an assassination attempt in 2017 and returned from exile in 2020, has been one of President Hassan’s most vocal critics.

With CHADEMA and other key opposition candidates barred, President Hassan’s ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) faces little organized competition. Her campaign has centered on promises to expand economic reforms, strengthen women’s participation in leadership, and promote national unity after years of political polarization under her late predecessor, John Magufuli.

Hassan, who became Tanzania’s first female president in 2021 following Magufuli’s sudden death, is seen by supporters as a stabilizing figure who has reopened civic space and restored Tanzania’s international relations. Critics, however, argue that recent government actions including opposition bans and media restrictions  show a return to authoritarian tendencies.

Election officials reported a strong voter turnout early in the day, though sporadic reports of delays and irregularities surfaced in some urban districts. Results are expected to be announced within the next several days.

Regional observers from the East African Community (EAC) and the African Union (AU) have deployed monitoring teams, though access for some international media outlets has reportedly been restricted.

Protesters barricaded roads, burned tyres, and chanted slogans accusing the government of electoral fraud, prompting a heavy security response. Police deployed teargas and water cannons to disperse demonstrators supporting opposition candidate Issa Tchiroma, who claims victory over long serving President Paul Biya in the October 12 vote.

Opposition Disputes Vote Count

Tchiroma’s supporters allege that vote-rigging is underway to secure yet another term for Biya, who at 92 years old has ruled Cameroon since 1982, making him one of the world’s longest serving leaders.

“We will not accept stolen results,” said one protester in Douala. “The people have spoken, and the government must respect our vote.”

Partial tallies published by local media suggest Biya is on course to win, though opposition figures insist their own parallel vote counts show Tchiroma leading.

Government Response

Authorities have rejected claims of manipulation, urging citizens to remain calm and wait for the official results from the National Elections Commission (ELECAM).

Government spokespersons accused opposition leaders of “inciting unrest” and warned that security forces would act to maintain order. Meanwhile, independent observers have called for transparency in the tabulation process to preserve public confidence in the outcome.

Tense Political Climate

The protests underscore growing political tension in a country that has faced years of unrest, particularly in its Anglophone regions, where separatist movements continue to challenge central government authority.

Analysts say the outcome of this election could either stabilize the political landscape or spark renewed confrontation if opposition supporters reject the official results.

As the nation awaits the final announcement, the situation remains volatile, with reports of heightened security in major cities including Yaoundé, Douala, and Bafoussam

Delegates at the high level gathering passed a motion instructing the government to begin drafting constitutional amendments that would override the current two term presidential limit, which would require Mnangagwa to step down in 2028.

The move, met with applause and support from party loyalists, signals a renewed push by ZANU-PF to consolidate power ahead of what many analysts see as a critical period for Zimbabwe’s political and economic future.

Legal and Political Implications

Zimbabwe’s 2013 Constitution ratified under a power sharing government after a decade of political instability clearly limits presidents to two five year terms. Mnangagwa, who came to power after a military assisted transition in 2017 that ended Robert Mugabe’s 37 year rule, was elected in 2018 and re-elected in 2023.

Legal experts say any change to presidential term limits would require a two thirds majority in Parliament which ZANU-PF currently holds and possibly a public referendum.

A Pattern of Entrenched Power

ZANU-PF has held uninterrupted power since Zimbabwe’s independence in 1980. Mnangagwa, once Mugabe’s close ally and former intelligence chief, has overseen a continued securitization of politics, where military and party elites dominate government functions.

Saturday’s motion echoes past instances in Zimbabwean and African politics where constitutional changes have been used to extend presidential terms a trend seen in countries like Uganda, Rwanda, and more recently, Côte d’Ivoire.

While supporters frame the move as a necessary adjustment to “maintain stability and economic growth,” critics argue it reflects a deeper erosion of democratic norms in a country still grappling with hyperinflation, corruption, and widespread unemployment.

Internal Dissent and Risks

Though the party remains largely unified in public, some insiders have reportedly voiced concerns that pushing a term extension could trigger legal challenges, civic protests, or international condemnation. In 2017, Zimbabweans backed Mnangagwa’s rise in hopes of reform, but opposition figures now accuse him of replicating Mugabe’s autocratic playbook.

“No one should rule forever,” said a senior member of the Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC), Zimbabwe’s main opposition party. “This is not about development. It’s about fear of accountability.”

What Happens Next

The legislative process to amend the Constitution is expected to begin in the coming months. It remains unclear whether a referendum will be held or whether the move will face formal opposition from within ZANU-PF ranks.

Observers warn that the plan, if executed, could set a precedent for future leadership extensions, weakening constitutional safeguards.

Colonel Michael Randrianirina was formally sworn in as President of Madagascar on Friday, just days after seizing power in a dramatic military led takeover triggered by mass youth led protests against the previous government.

The swearing in ceremony took place in the capital, Antananarivo, amid scenes of celebration that included blaring trumpets, traditional sword salutes, and large crowds waving national flags. Supporters cheered as Randrianirina pledged to restore “stability, dignity, and national unity” in the wake of what he called a “constitutional crisis.”

The transition follows the ousting of former President Andry Rajoelina, who fled the country over the weekend amid growing unrest and a breakdown of political authority. Rajoelina was impeached by lawmakers shortly after his departure. The High Constitutional Court ratified the military takeover within hours, granting Randrianirina legitimacy under Malagasy law.

Despite this, Rajoelina now in self imposed exile abroad has condemned the takeover as illegitimate and insists he remains the rightful leader. In a video address posted Thursday, he vowed to challenge the “unconstitutional coup,” even as the majority of Madagascar’s security forces and several senior government officials have defected to the new regime.

Youth-Led Uprising and Rapid Political Shift

The power shift follows weeks of student led protests and grassroots mobilization over corruption allegations, economic hardship, and frustration with political elites. Demonstrations swelled in early October, culminating in nationwide strikes and clashes with security forces.

Colonel Randrianirina, a relatively low profile figure until now, rose to prominence after aligning himself with protest leaders and calling for “a national reset.” Backed by elements of the army and civil society, he declared the government “incapacitated” and took control of state institutions.

Regional and International Reactions

The African Union and United Nations have expressed concern about the military’s role in the transition, urging a swift return to constitutional order and democratic elections. However, both bodies stopped short of calling the takeover a coup, instead noting the “unique and evolving context.”

Some analysts say Randrianirina’s swift move to seek court ratification and his public statements about elections may help defuse international criticism, though questions remain about the timeline for a return to civilian rule.

 “The Developments from ICAD 2025”. To begin with, I’d like to make reference to a panel discussion moderated by LN24 International’s Yvonne Katsande. She was joined by Ambassador Dr Arikana, the former AU ambassador to the US, as well as Professor Patrick Lumumba, who is a lawyer and advocate, as well as the former director of the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission. And right at the commencement of the panel discussion, Yvone Katsande poses a question that addresses one of the most critical focuses for the African continent, which is the subject of extrication from detrimental treaties and organisations. In responding to the question on how African countries can accomplish this, Ambassador Dr Arikana brought to mind something quite important. She states that we first need to have an accurate understanding of why international organisations like the UN, IMF and WB were created, and why that does not align with the best interests of Africa. She states that these institutions were formed after WWII when the Western World had destroyed itself again, and they needed systematised ways to justify plunder.

This immediately brought to mind what Professor Patrick Lumumba highlighted in his keynote address before the panel discussion, which is that neo-colonialism poses a threat far greater than colonisation itself, because this time around the colonial actors are faced with desperation – which we highlighted is due to the fact that Europe is spent – they do not have an abundance of resources that offer them a comparative advantage in global trade. And so, in the post colonial and post WWII era, neocolonists created international organisations that technically respect the provisions of laws and treaties that demand a respect for human rights and sovereignty in Africa, BUT that simultaneously create a legal justification for plunder.

And before we delve into manifestations of this legal justification for plunder, let’s revisit the moment where the President of Loveworld Incorporated highlighted the reality of Africa being the new world, where new resources are being discovered even now, while Europe is spent.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS: A NEOCOLONIAL MODEL FOR LEGALLY JUSTIFIED PLUNDER

So, let’s talk about international organisations as a neo-colonial model for legally justified plunder; and we ought to begin with the Bretton Woods institutions: being the WB and the IMF – in light of Structural adjustment policies. Now, structural adjustment policies were developed by two of the IMF and the World Bank. After the run on the dollar of 1979–80, the United States adjusted its monetary policy and instituted other measures so it could begin competing aggressively for capital on a global scale. This was successful, as can be seen from the current account of the country’s balance of payments. Enormous capital flows to the United States had the corollary of dramatically depleting the availability of capital to poor and middling countries. Giovanni Arrighi has observed that this scarcity of capital, which was heralded by the Mexican default of 1982, created a propitious environment for the counterrevolution in development thought and practise that the neoliberal Washington Consensus began advocating at about the same time. Taking advantage of the financial straits of many low- and middle-income countries, the agencies of the consensus foisted on them measures of “structural adjustment” that did nothing to improve their position in the global hierarchy of wealth but greatly facilitated the redirection of capital flows toward sustaining the revival of US wealth and power.

Structural adjustment policies, as they are known today, originated due to a series of global economic disasters during the late 1970s: the oil crisis, debt crisis, multiple economic depressions, and stagflation. These fiscal disasters led policy makers to decide that deeper intervention was necessary to improve a country’s overall well-being – this was a big mistake.

Now, Mexico was the first country to implement structural adjustment in exchange for loans. During the 1980s the IMF and World Bank created loan packages for the majority of countries in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa as they experienced economic crises. To this day, economists can point to few, if any, examples of substantial economic growth among the LDCs under SAPs. Moreover, very few of the loans have been paid off. Hence, pressure mounts to forgive these debts, some of which demand substantial portions of government expenditures to service. In addition, there are multiple criticisms that focus on different elements of SAPs. There are many examples of structural adjustments failing. In Africa, instead of making economies grow fast, structural adjustment actually had a contractive impact in most countries. Economic growth in African countries in the 1980s and 1990s fell below the rates of previous decades. Agriculture suffered as state support was radically withdrawn. After the independence of African countries in the 1960s, industrialization had begun in some places, but it was now wiped out. In any case, let’s look at these criticisms in greater detail.

THE APT CRITICISMS OF STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT PROGRAMMES

First is the undermining of national sovereignty. More specifically, critics claim that SAPs threaten the sovereignty of national economies because an outside organisation is dictating a nation’s economic policy. One of the core problems with conventional structural-adjustment programs in this respect is the subsequent disproportionate cutting of social spending that is then mandated by structural adjustment programmes. When public budgets are slashed, the primary victims are disadvantaged communities who typically are not well organised. An almost classic criticism of structural adjustment is pointing out the dramatic cuts in the education and health sectors. In many cases, governments ended up spending less money on these essential services than on servicing international debts.

The second criticism is concerns Neo-colonialism and neo-imperialism. Concerning this, SAPS are viewed by some postcolonialists as the modern procedure of colonisation. By minimising a government’s ability to organise and regulate its internal economy, pathways are created for multinational companies to enter states and extract their resources. Upon independence from colonial rule, many nations that took on foreign debt were unable to repay it, limited as they were to production and exportation of cash crops, and restricted from control of their own more valuable natural resources (oil, minerals) by SAP free-trade and low-regulation requirements. In order to repay interest, these postcolonial countries are forced to acquire further foreign debt, in order to pay off previous interests, resulting in an endless cycle of financial subjugation.

Furthermore, Osterhammel’s The Dictionary of Human Geography defines colonialism as the “enduring relationship of domination and mode of dispossession, usually (or at least initially) between an indigenous (or enslaved) majority and a minority of interlopers (colonisers), who are convinced of their own superiority, pursue their own interests, and exercise power through a mixture of coercion, persuasion, conflict and collaboration”. The definition adopted by The Dictionary of Human Geography suggests (correctly so) that Washington Consensus SAPs resemble modern, financial colonisation!

Then there is Austerity. Critics hold SAPs responsible for much of the economic stagnation that has occurred in the borrowing countries. SAPs emphasise maintaining a balanced budget, which forces austerity programs. The casualties of balancing a budget are often social programs. For example, if a government cuts education funding, universality is impaired, and therefore long-term economic growth. Similarly, cuts to health programs have allowed diseases such as AIDS to devastate some areas’ economies by destroying the workforce. A 2009 book by Rick Rowden entitled The Deadly Ideas of Neoliberalism: How the IMF has Undermined Public Health and the Fight Against AIDS claims that the IMF’s monetarist approach towards prioritising price stability (low inflation) and fiscal restraint (low budget deficits) was unnecessarily restrictive and has prevented developing countries from being able to scale up long-term public investment as a percentage of GDP in the underlying public health infrastructure. The book claims the consequences have been chronically underfunded public health systems, leading to dilapidated health infrastructure, inadequate numbers of health personnel, and demoralising working conditions that have fueled the “push factors” driving the brain drain of nurses migrating from poor countries to rich ones, all of which has undermined public health systems and the fight against HIV/AIDS in developing countries!

THE HARMFUL IMPACT OF FOREIGN AID ON RECIPIENT COUNTRIES AND CITIZENS

Let’s also discuss foreign aid. The problem with foreign aid is notable in various contexts and performed by various actors. A high proportion of foreign aid is in the form of loans, which cripple developing countries through the accumulation of debt. Many rich nations receive more in interest payments from recipient countries than they give in “aid”. Especially since the 2008 financial crash, western governments have exploited their ability to borrow money at low rates by setting up aid programmes lending to poor countries at much higher rates, minting money on the backs of the poor. This is not aid, it’s a scandal. However, this problem is embedded in the very nature of humanitarian or foreign aid itself.

DEVELOPING DEMOCRACY: CHARTING AFRICA’S PATHWAY FROM NEOLIBERALISM AND EXPLOITATION

Let’s also talk about democracy, because it is a massive feature at ICAD – particularly, the idea of decolonising democracy. We are often told that democracy is the ideal system, the pinnacle of governance, really. But is it really suitable for every society, especially in Africa? This question becomes even more relevant when we consider how democracy has led to the rise of civilian governments that have been penetrated by neocolonial influences in many African nations, or even has amounted to a system where people vote based on religion or ethnicity rather than policies or capabilities. So, what is a well appropriated and commensurate adoption of democracy in Africa?

In Africa, the practice of a western liberal form of democracy has had its share of challenges. For instance, elections (while being crucial) have also brought  civil unrest – so much so, that people anticipate unrest and violence, often staying home or leaving their towns during voting periods (hence the often concerning percentage of the population that commits to casting a vote). In addition, democracy has not always brought the peace it promises; instead, it has exacerbated divisions, particularly along ethnic and religious lines, as we see that at times, people in Africa vote for someone from their community or religion, not necessarily the most capable person to lead the country.

So, what’s the alternative? I think that there are tenets of democracy that are essential – like elections. But, we need to rethink how we select leaders. And the same way we require education and training to become a doctor or a teacher, there should be a process to vet and prepare individuals who aspire to lead a country. Leaders should have the capability, education, and (more importantly) experience and a track record of good works in leadership, in which they have advanced society.

Second, we need to move away from the idea of multiparty systems, especially in countries as diverse as those in Africa. Multiparty politics often exacerbate divisions rather than unify people. Instead, a single-party system with room for various ideas and solutions could provide a more cohesive structure. It is not practical for citizens to have to choose from 200 or 900 political parties. That is a pre-condition for coalition governance – because of course there will not be a clear majority!

Now, this is not to say that there must be a homogenisation of political parties – absolutely not! We need competition that creates an incentive to be the best at responding to the mandate for citizens. Rather, this is to say that the failure to conglutinate and work as one with people you align with, thus resulting in there being many parties, is an indictment on the political class. In fact, it already proves there is an incapacity to cooperate with others for the advancement of a country, and so, citizens cannot afford to trust you. So, these are some of the things that need to be corrected when it comes to how Africa appropriates democracy.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

This high-level event features a diverse assembly of African heads of state, government ministers, faith-based leaders, academics, civil society actors, social innovators, and youth leaders. Delegates have gathered to engage in strategic conversations, policy workshops, and interactive panels on the continent’s democratic challenges and opportunities.

With the theme “Building Resilient Democratic Institutions for Africa’s Future,” ICAD 2025 aims to address key issues such as electoral integrity, civic engagement, corruption, human rights, institutional reform, and inclusive governance. The agenda also explores the intersection between democracy and sustainable development goals (SDGs).

Speaking during the opening plenary, keynote speakers emphasized the urgent need to protect democratic institutions amid rising authoritarian tendencies and civic suppression in parts of the continent. The event also spotlighted the role of young people and digital technology in transforming governance models and political participation in Africa.

Representing LN24 International, Senior Correspondents Yvonne Katsande and Hillary Panashe are on the ground providing exclusive interviews, panel recaps, and behind-the-scenes insights from the conference.

Key Highlights So Far:

• Panel on Electoral Systems: Experts from Ghana, Kenya, and South Africa discussed how to build more credible and transparent elections.

• Youth Inclusion Session: Young leaders called for better representation and digital access to governance platforms.

• Faith and Democracy Dialogue: Religious leaders spoke on promoting peace, justice, and civic responsibility through faith-based initiatives.

The conference continues through the week with additional sessions focused on media freedom, constitutional reforms, regional cooperation, and post-conflict democratic rebuilding.

ICAD 2025 is widely regarded as a critical forum at a time when the future of democracy in Africa faces both significant risks and unprecedented potential.