European Parliament revolts over EU’s €150m aid for Tanzania

The European Parliament is in open revolt against the European Commission's proposed €156 million aid package to Tanzania, citing severe human rights violations and democratic backsliding in the East African nation. MEPs accuse the Commission of failing to implement adequate human rights checks and balances, despite a previous suspension of funds and minor adjustments to the disbursement mechanism. This clash highlights the EU's commitment to human rights conditionality in its external relations, enshrined in foundational treaties and agreements like the Cotonou Agreement and its successor, the Samoa Agreement, and underscores the Parliament's increasing assertiveness in scrutinising development aid to ensure alignment with EU values.

A significant institutional clash has erupted within the European Union, pitting the European Parliament against the European Commission over a substantial €156 million development aid package earmarked for Tanzania. Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) have vehemently objected to the disbursement of these funds, accusing the Commission of overlooking a deteriorating human rights situation and a concerning trend of democratic backsliding in Tanzania. This is not the first time the Parliament has raised such concerns, having previously prompted a suspension of the funds, yet MEPs argue that the Commission's revised proposal still lacks meaningful conditionality and sufficient safeguards.

This dispute transcends a mere budgetary disagreement; it strikes at the heart of the EU's stated commitment to human rights and democratic principles in its external action. For legal professionals, the controversy illuminates the complex interplay between political objectives, legal frameworks governing international aid, and the practical challenges of implementing human rights conditionality in sensitive geopolitical contexts. The Parliament's firm stance signals a growing demand for greater accountability and adherence to EU values in development cooperation, setting a precedent for future engagements with partner countries.

The article will delve into the specific accusations against Tanzania, examine the EU's legal and policy framework for human rights conditionality in external aid, and analyse the institutional dynamics between the European Parliament and the European Commission in this critical area. It will conclude by considering the implications for legal practitioners involved in EU development projects and the broader trajectory of EU external relations.

The European Union's external action is fundamentally guided by its founding values, as articulated in Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which mandates the Union to promote democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and respect for human dignity. Furthermore, Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) specifies that the Union's development cooperation policy shall have as its primary objective the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty. These treaty provisions form the bedrock for the EU's human rights conditionality in its development aid.

Historically, the Cotonou Agreement, which governed relations between the EU and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States until its expiry in 2020, was a cornerstone of this framework. Article 9(2)(4) of the Cotonou Agreement explicitly designated respect for human rights, democratic principles, and the rule of law as "essential elements" of the partnership. This clause provided for a structured political dialogue (Article 8) and a consultation procedure (Article 96) that could lead to the suspension of aid in cases of serious violations. The Cotonou Agreement was notable for the practical implementation of its human rights clause.

Its successor, the Samoa Agreement, signed in November 2023 and provisionally applied from January 2024, continues to anchor the EU's partnership with OACPS countries to provisions on appropriate measures for breaches of essential elements, including democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Complementing these agreements, the EU's Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy 2020-2027 sets out strategic priorities for promoting human rights globally, aligning with the EU budget cycle and committing to a human rights-based approach (HRBA) to development cooperation. The European Consensus on Development further solidifies the commitment of the EU and its Member States to implementing an HRBA, ensuring that human rights principles are integrated into development activities.

The European Parliament's objection to the €156 million aid package for Tanzania stems from a litany of documented human rights abuses and a perceived erosion of democratic norms. MEPs have highlighted the violent crackdown on protests following the October 2025 elections, which reportedly led to over 500 deaths, with some human rights organisations citing thousands of victims. Further concerns include the politically motivated imprisonment of opposition leader Tundu Lissu, severe restrictions on freedom of expression and media, arbitrary arrests, disappearances, torture, and the forced evictions of Indigenous Maasai communities from their ancestral lands. The Tanzanian authorities' decision to postpone a visit by a delegation from the European Parliament's Subcommittee on Human Rights further exacerbated these tensions, signalling a lack of willingness to engage in good-faith dialogue.

Legally, the Parliament's position is rooted in the EU's robust framework for human rights conditionality in external aid. While the Cotonou Agreement has expired, its principles, particularly the "essential elements" clause, are carried forward in the new Samoa Agreement. This framework allows for the suspension of aid or the imposition of other "appropriate measures" when a partner country fails to uphold its commitments to human rights, democratic principles, and the rule of law. The EU's commitment to a Human Rights-Based Approach (HRBA) in its development cooperation further obliges the Commission to ensure that aid does not inadvertently contribute to human rights violations but actively promotes their respect.

The institutional dynamic in this case reveals a significant tension between the European Parliament and the European Commission. While the Commission, as the executive arm, is responsible for proposing and managing the EU budget and external aid programmes, the Parliament plays a crucial oversight role. MEPs, through their Foreign Affairs and Development committees, have the power to object to the Commission's financing plans, effectively blocking the disbursement of funds, even if they cannot unilaterally force the Commission to change its overall strategy. The Commission's attempt to address concerns by shifting from direct budget support to indirect management of funds was deemed insufficient by the Parliament, which demanded "meaningful conditionality and no clear consequences if the situation continues to deteriorate."

This ongoing disagreement underscores a broader debate within the EU regarding the effectiveness and accountability of budget support as an aid modality, particularly in countries with weak governance and human rights records. Questions about the quality, value for money, and impact of budget support, and its links to political governance and conditionality, have been raised by various stakeholders, including the European Court of Auditors and national parliaments. The Parliament's current stance reflects a desire for more stringent monitoring and a stronger link between aid disbursement and tangible improvements in human rights and democratic governance.

The European Parliament's sustained opposition to the €156 million aid package for Tanzania serves as a potent reminder of the EU's legal and political commitment to embedding human rights and democratic principles within its external action. The ongoing clash with the European Commission highlights the inherent complexities and institutional tensions in operationalising these values, particularly when faced with deteriorating conditions in partner countries. While the Parliament cannot directly dictate the Commission's final decisions, its robust scrutiny and ability to block financing plans exert significant political pressure, compelling the Commission to re-evaluate its approach to aid conditionality.

For legal practitioners, this development signals an intensified focus on human rights due diligence and conditionality clauses in EU-funded projects. Attorneys advising on development cooperation, international trade, and investment in countries receiving EU aid must be acutely aware of the evolving landscape of EU external policy, particularly the increasing emphasis on verifiable human rights performance. The eventual ratification and implementation of the Samoa Agreement, alongside the continued application of the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy, will further solidify the legal framework for such conditionality. Future EU aid disbursements are likely to face even greater parliamentary scrutiny, demanding more robust mechanisms for accountability and demonstrable improvements in governance and human rights from recipient states.