Proliferation of counterfeit goods in Tanzania: A critical analysis of law enforcement in consumer protection

The study critically analysed the paradox of proliferation of counterfeit goods in Tanzania, focusing on the aspect of law enforcement in consumer protection. Four regions (Dar es Salaam, Arusha, Tanga and Dodoma) were selected on the basis that they are potentially the entry points of counterfeit goods in the country. Specifically, the study examined the efficacy of the legal institutional frameworks in enhancing consumer protection against counterfeit and the measures which should be made to overcome the challenge. This was purely a qualitative study. The methods of data collection were mainly interviews and documentary evidences. Results indicated that proliferation of counterfeit goods in Tanzania is attributable to ineffective legal and institutional frameworks. The framework is constrained by fragmentation of different pieces of legislations and contradictory institutional set up, ambiguous definition of counterfeit and institutional capacity limitations ranging from lack of human and fiscal resources, inadequate personnel, poor infrastructure and poor technology. Moreover, the penalties charged are insufficient to deter counterfeit crimes. To address the challenges, the following recommendations are made: The sanctions provided by the Merchandise Mark Act 1963 (MMA) and the Fair Competition Act (FCA) are insufficient to deter counterfeit in Tanzania, hence should be amended. Moreover, section 10 (3) of the MMA, which provides for counterfeit prevention at border points should be amended because it creates loopholes for malicious official to engage in corruption after seizing counterfeit goods, thereby creating an endless chain of crime because those officials benefit from sustainability of counterfeit business. Additionally, the section which defines the term “counterfeit”, should be revised to provide a comprehensive definition of the word. It is also suggested that the Fair Competition Commission (FCC) should deal only with monitoring fair competition in the market. Finally, education and training on counterfeit have to be provided to different actors including officials at boarder points and consumers.