Felicity’s Note: I have been fortunate to work with the author of this article, Joseph B Kisole, and Lawyers Without Borders, facilitating training for anti-trafficking in persons projects in Tanzania and also in Kenya. Joseph has written about the process of plea bargaining in Zanzibar, comparing it with the procedure of mainland Tanzania. Joseph’s article made me reflect on my experiences during the Bahtijari plea negotiations in the Kosovo Specialist Chambers – the first ever plea deal accepted by that court!
Plea bargaining has become an increasingly important tool in the administration of criminal justice across East Africa. Both Zanzibar and Mainland Tanzania now recognize it formally, but they do so through different legal instruments and philosophies.
In Zanzibar, the system is governed by the Plea Bargaining Rules, 2006 (‘Zanzibar Rules’), issued under section 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2004 and reinforced by the Criminal Procedure Act, 2018 (‘CPA 2018’). Mainland Tanzania, by contrast, only adopted its comprehensive framework much later, with the Criminal Procedure (Plea Bargaining) Rules, 2021 made under section 194 of the Criminal Procedure Act [Cap. 20 R.E. 2019]. What emerges is a fascinating comparison: Zanzibar’s framework, though older, is stricter and court-centric, while Mainland Tanzania’s is newer, more flexible, and geared towards procedural efficiency.
In Zanzibar, judicial oversight is embedded from the very beginning. No negotiation can take place without the knowledge of a magistrate or judge, and the written consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is mandatory (per CPA 2018). This ensures that the court is not a mere recipient of agreements but an active supervisor from the outset. The judicial officer must confirm that the accused understands the meaning and consequences of pleading guilty, and must also ensure that the decision is voluntary and free from coercion. For example, in cases where an accused person has limited education or faces complex charges, the magistrate must take additional steps to confirm comprehension. Mainland Tanzania developed differently. Historically, bargaining took place outside the court system, with the DPP and defence concluding agreements privately before involving the court. The 2021 Rules corrected this by requiring notification of the court once the intention to negotiate is declared, though judicial involvement remains less intrusive than in Zanzibar.
A central innovation in Mainland Tanzania was the introduction of prosecutorial duties of disclosure.
Under the 2021 Rules, prosecutors are required to share all relevant evidence with the accused, enabling informed decision-making. This reflects a policy shift: while Zanzibar’s protections rely on judicial supervision, Mainland Tanzania relies on prosecutorial transparency. To operationalize this, the National Prosecutions Service issued the NPS Plea Bargaining Guidelines of 2022, which provide practical steps for prosecutors. They require negotiations to be conducted professionally, transparently, and in writing, with detailed records kept of every step. Prosecutors must consult investigative agencies and victims, form negotiation teams, prepare negotiation plans, and seek approval from authorized officers before concluding agreements. This professionalization of the process highlights Mainland Tanzania’s emphasis on institutional accountability and consistency.
The Guidelines also detail the factors prosecutors must consider before accepting a bargain, including the gravity of the offence, recidivism, mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the financial condition of the accused, and above all the public interest (Guideline 3.3), Where compensation or restitution is involved, prosecutors are directed to ensure agreements are realistic, proportionate, and in line with the interests of justice. Importantly, they impose duties on prosecutors in court: they must notify the court of the negotiations, present the agreed facts, ensure the accused confirms them under oath, and request the court to register the agreement (Guideline 6). This strengthens the supervisory role of courts without undermining prosecutorial discretion, creating a dual safeguard system of transparency and judicial validation.
The scope of offences eligible for plea bargaining also differs between Zanzibar and the Mainland. In Zanzibar, there are no formal statutory exclusions, but in practice serious crimes such as murder or treason are rarely considered. Economic and corruption-related crimes are more common candidates, as illustrated in Mwanakhamis Juma Khamis v. DPP [2025] TZZNZHC 40 (Zanzibar HC). Mainland Tanzania, however, expressly widened eligibility under the 2021 Rules, extending plea bargaining to offences that were previously seen as non-negotiable, such as economic, sexual, and drug-related offences. The NPS Guidelines reinforce this by setting procedures for negotiations in complex cases, including those involving multiple accused persons or child offenders (Guidelines 2.1 & 3.2).
On the rights of accused persons, Zanzibar emphasizes judicial scrutiny of voluntariness, while the Mainland provides space for the accused to propose compensation terms and participate actively in negotiations. The Guidelines strengthen this participation by requiring prosecutors to explain the charges, evidence, and consequences of conviction, thereby ensuring that the accused enters into agreements knowingly. Sentencing flexibility is also emphasized. While Zanzibar remains conservative with statutory minimums, Mainland Tanzania’s Rules allow courts to impose penalties below statutory minima when justified by a plea bargain, a reform designed to make negotiations more attractive and fair (2021 Rules, rule 21). The Guidelines operationalize this by requiring sentence recommendations to be clear, justified, and proportionate.
Finally, the Guidelines address post-agreement stages. They set out duties for executing the terms of plea agreements, including applications for restraining orders, facilitating compensation transfers, and monitoring compliance. They also provide for enforcement in cases of violation, allowing prosecutors to reinstate dropped charges or apply to set aside fraudulent agreements (Guidelines 7-9). This strengthens the credibility and enforceability of plea bargains, ensuring they are not merely negotiated settlements but binding instruments backed by both prosecutorial authority and judicial supervision.
In conclusion, Zanzibar and Mainland Tanzania reveal distinct philosophies in plea bargaining. Zanzibar emphasizes early judicial oversight and prosecutorial consent, producing a cautious, court-driven model. Mainland Tanzania emphasizes prosecutorial disclosure, wider eligibility, sentencing flexibility, and institutional guidelines, producing a reformist, process-driven model. The issuance of the NPS Guidelines (2022) represents a significant step forward, embedding transparency, professionalism, and consistency in prosecutorial practice. Taken together, the two systems illustrate how different legal traditions within one Union can shape plea bargaining: Zanzibar’s model is conservative and rights-oriented, while Mainland Tanzania’s is pragmatic, reform-focused, and guided by institutionalised prosecutorial procedures.
About the Author
Joseph B. Kisole is the In-Country Manager and Faculty at Lawyers without Borders T-TIP project. For the past Seven years he worked in CEASE: Wildlife Crimes 2017, Wildlife Crime Mock Trial Competition for Tanzania and Kenya (WICRI) 2021 and IMPACT: TIPTAN Project Ant-Trafficking in Persons Tanzania (2023) and T-TIP, The Projects focusing at Training Magistrates, Judges, police officers, Immigration Officers, Wildlife Officers, State Attorneys and Community Leaders on Investigation and prosecution of TIP and Wildlife cases in Tanzania and Counter Terrorism project in Kenya. In 2016 he was Legal officer in-charge of legal education and Community outreach at Center for Environmental Law and Governance (CELG) and served as an intern at the Ministry of Land and Human Settlement in Tanzania.
Joseph holds a Master of Law in Rule of Law for Development from Loyola University Chicago School of Law, Master of International Law with International Relations and Bachelor of law from Tumaini University Makumira, and a Postgraduate Diploma in Legal practice from the Law School of Zanzibar.
