TISS, Accountability, and the Danger of Reckless Generalization

By. Rev. Godwin Chilewa

In recent weeks, a growing chorus of voices has called for Tanzania’s Intelligence and Security Service (TISS) to be declared a terrorist organization . These calls, fueled by reports of post-election violence, alleged abductions, and human rights concerns, reflect deep public anxiety. However, labeling an intelligence agency a “terrorist organisation” through public rhetoric is not only legally flawed but also dangerously simplistic.

At the heart of this debate lies a deeper and more troubling issue: the rise of reckless generalization in Tanzania’s political discourse.

TISS is not an informal militia or an underground network. It is a state institution established under Tanzanian law, with a clearly defined mandate: safeguarding national security, collecting intelligence, and advising the government on threats to the nation. Its officers are vetted, trained, and bound by legal frameworks. To equate such an institution wholesale with terrorism is to disregard both the rule of law and the institutional structure of the state.

This pattern of generalization is not new. Opposition parties such as CHADEMA, despite their lawful status, have often been labeled as traitors by political actors. Such labeling does not distinguish between individuals, actions, or evidence, it paints entire groups with a single brush. The result is dangerous: citizens begin to see all members of an opposition party as enemies of the state, which is neither true nor just.

The same flawed logic is now being applied to TISS. Allegations against certain individuals however serious are being used to condemn an entire institution. But institutions, like political parties, are made up of individuals with varying roles, responsibilities, and levels of influence. To assume uniform guilt across all members is to abandon fairness and reason.

This does not mean TISS or any security organ should be immune from scrutiny. On the contrary, the seriousness of allegations raised demands careful, lawful investigation. Claims of unlawful killings, disappearances, and abuse of power, whether in Mwanza or elsewhere, must be independently examined. If individual officers whether from TISS, police, or any other agency have engaged in criminal conduct, the law is clear: they must be prosecuted and punished accordingly.

But we must also allow for another possibility, one often ignored in emotionally charged narratives: what if there were voices within the system that opposed wrongdoing? What if senior intelligence officials, including the Director General of Intelligence and Security, Mr. Suleman Abubakar Mombo had warned against the use of excessive force or the killing of innocent civilians? Institutions are not monolithic. Within them can exist both compliance and resistance, both failure and integrity.

The report in question moves too quickly from allegations to sweeping conclusions. It relies heavily on phrases such as “reported connections,” “leaked submissions,” and “attribution claims,” yet proceeds to demand the most extreme classification available in international law. This leap undermines the very credibility of the argument it seeks to advance.

Equally concerning is the merging of distinct national issues, election violence, Maasai displacement, and alleged cross-border incidents into a single accusatory framework centered on TISS. Each of these issues deserves serious, independent examination. Combining them into one narrative risks obscuring accountability rather than clarifying it.

There is also a broader implication. Labeling a national intelligence service as a terrorist organisation carries profound diplomatic and legal consequences. It is not a label to be used as a tool of protest or political pressure, but one that requires rigorous legal standards and undeniable evidence.

Let it be known that none of this diminishes the pain of victims or the urgency of justice. Thousands of civilians were unlawfully harmed, and abuses occurred under the cover of state authority. Those responsible must face the full force of the law. Tanzania’s credibility depends on transparent investigations, judicial independence, and accountability.

However, justice cannot be built on generalization. The same principle that demands we do not label all members of CHADEMA as traitors must also guide us not to label all members of TISS as perpetrators of terror.

Tanzania does not need sweeping accusations it needs disciplined truth. It needs a commitment to distinguish individuals from institutions, allegations from proof, and justice from anger.

Only then can the nation move forward with both integrity and unity.