DAR ES SALAAM – In a ruling handed down yesterday, the District Court of Temeke has ordered social media influencer Clemence Kenan Mwandambo to surrender all his social media accounts and report to the police monthly for a year, despite prosecutors admitting they possess insufficient evidence to charge him with a crime.
The decision was delivered on Friday, January 9, 2026, by Principal Resident Magistrate J.A. Kaliuyenda in Chamber Court No. 5.
Police Admit: No Evidence to Charge
The application, filed by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions under Criminal Application No. 637 of 2026, relied heavily on an affidavit sworn by Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Jumanne Kimu Amas, the Regional Crime Officer (RCO) for Temeke.
In a rare admission within the affidavit, ACP Amas stated that although the police had mounted a criminal investigation and arrested Mwandambo in the Mbeya Region, they had failed to build a case.
"Despite a criminal investigation mounted against [the] respondent, the police officer has not been able to gather sufficient evidence to charge the respondent," paragraph 9 of the affidavit reads.
ACP Amas argued that despite this lack of evidence, Mwandambo should be "closely monitored for safety reasons and thus protect public tranquility." The police alleged that Mwandambo had confessed to using his platform to "distribute false materials" and was suspected of cybercrime offenses.
The Court's Orders
Magistrate Kaliuyenda granted the application in its entirety. The court imposed the following strict conditions on Mwandambo:
The ruling comes amidst an "intensive operation against cybercrime offenses" by the Temeke Police Force. Mwandambo was identified through police intelligence in December 2025 as a suspect involved in the publication of false information.
Legal observers may view the ruling as controversial, given the court's willingness to impose what amounts to a digital gag order and restriction of movement on a citizen whom the state has explicitly admitted it cannot legally charge with a crime.
Mwandambo was present in court for the ruling. It remains unclear if he intends to appeal the decision.
The decision was delivered on Friday, January 9, 2026, by Principal Resident Magistrate J.A. Kaliuyenda in Chamber Court No. 5.
Police Admit: No Evidence to Charge
The application, filed by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions under Criminal Application No. 637 of 2026, relied heavily on an affidavit sworn by Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Jumanne Kimu Amas, the Regional Crime Officer (RCO) for Temeke.
In a rare admission within the affidavit, ACP Amas stated that although the police had mounted a criminal investigation and arrested Mwandambo in the Mbeya Region, they had failed to build a case.
"Despite a criminal investigation mounted against [the] respondent, the police officer has not been able to gather sufficient evidence to charge the respondent," paragraph 9 of the affidavit reads.
ACP Amas argued that despite this lack of evidence, Mwandambo should be "closely monitored for safety reasons and thus protect public tranquility." The police alleged that Mwandambo had confessed to using his platform to "distribute false materials" and was suspected of cybercrime offenses.
The Court's Orders
Magistrate Kaliuyenda granted the application in its entirety. The court imposed the following strict conditions on Mwandambo:
- Surrender of Accounts: The respondent must surrender all his social media accounts to the authorities.
- Reporting Condition: He is ordered to report to the Temeke Regional Crimes Officer on the last Friday of every month for a period of one year.
- Bond: Execution of a bond of TZS 5,000,000 with one reliable surety.
- Behavioral Restrictions: A general order not to commit any offenses related to cybercrimes.
The ruling comes amidst an "intensive operation against cybercrime offenses" by the Temeke Police Force. Mwandambo was identified through police intelligence in December 2025 as a suspect involved in the publication of false information.
Legal observers may view the ruling as controversial, given the court's willingness to impose what amounts to a digital gag order and restriction of movement on a citizen whom the state has explicitly admitted it cannot legally charge with a crime.
Mwandambo was present in court for the ruling. It remains unclear if he intends to appeal the decision.
