Normative Overbreadth and Legal Ambiguity: A Doctrinal Critique of “Illegal Access” Under Tanzania’s Cybercrimes Act

Abstract

Tanzania's rapid internet expansion has coincided with increasingly assertive regulation of online expression, most visibly during the October 2025 general elections, when authorities blocked X, Clubhouse, Telegram and JamiiForums, causing a severe multi-day national connectivity disruption. Many Tanzanian users turned to VPNs to reach these platforms. This article examines whether such VPN use could be characterised as "illegal access" under section 4 of the Cybercrimes Act [Cap 443 R.E. 2023], read with the "access" definition in section 3. Using a doctrinal methodology combining statutory interpretation, Tanzanian criminal-law principles, constitutional analysis and comparative law, the article argues that sections 3 and 4 fail to distinguish malicious intrusion into computer systems from lawful, technologically mediated access to publicly available platforms. No actual prosecution, arrest, or prosecutorial guidance applying section 4 to VPN users could be identified; the claim is therefore framed as one of potential liability and interpretive uncertainty rather than demonstrated enforcement. The absence of any requirement to overcome a security measure, an undefined concept of "unlawfulness," and a mental element that arguably attaches only to the physical act of access together produce a statutory formulation difficult to reconcile with the principle of legality, legal certainty, and constitutional protections of privacy and expression under Articles 16 and 18. Comparative analysis of Kenya's Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act 2018, South Africa's Cybercrimes Act 2020, the Budapest Convention, and the 2024 UN Convention against Cybercrime shows narrower formulations exist without compromising legitimate cybersecurity objectives. The article concludes that Tanzania's framework is constitutionally deficient at the "prescribed by law" stage and disproportionate in potential application, proposing amendments to sections 3, 4, and Regulation 16 of the Online Content Regulations 2020 to confine liability to genuinely culpable conduct.