Public Leadership and The Rule of Law in Tanzania: A Doctrinal Analysis of Constitutional Constraints on Public Power

The rule of law requires public power to be exercised through, and subject to, law rather than personal discretion. In Tanzania, this principle is expressed through constitutional commitments to popular sovereignty, accountability, equality before the law, fundamental rights, judicial authority and the constitutional duty to safeguard the Constitution. Yet the existence of constitutional provisions does not by itself establish effective constitutionalism. The central problem addressed in this article is therefore the relationship between the formal constitutional allocation of public power and the legal mechanisms available to restrain its exercise. The article adopts a doctrinal legal research methodology, analysing the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, 1977, relevant legislation, judicial decisions and selected international and regional legal standards. Particular attention is given to constitutional supremacy, popular sovereignty, separation of powers, presidential authority, legislative control, judicial review, public leadership ethics, fundamental rights and public-interest litigation. The analysis argues that Tanzania possesses a substantial constitutional framework capable of imposing legal constraints on public power, but that the effectiveness of the rule of law depends upon the practical relationship between constitutional norms, institutional independence, access to judicial remedies and respect for constitutional adjudication. Recent developments, particularly Onesmo Olengurumwa v Attorney General and the 2026 East African Court of Justice litigation concerning the restriction of public-interest constitutional litigation, demonstrate that the rule of law is not merely a principle governing citizens; it also governs the institutions that create, administer and enforce law. The article concludes that the decisive constitutional question is not whether public power is legally constituted, but whether every exercise of that power remains legally reviewable, institutionally accountable and consistent with constitutional supremacy.