Godfrey Malisa is one of three individuals from the ruling party, Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM), who have publicly opposed the nomination of Samia Suluhu Hassan as the party’s presidential candidate, citing violations of both the party constitution and the national constitution.
The other two include Humphrey Polepole, the former Tanzanian Ambassador to Cuba and a party insider who resigned in protest and has consistently maintained that the nomination process is illegitimate, and Davidlevi Nestory Kindikwa , a CCM member from Mwanza who publicly shared a letter he wrote to the Registrar of Political Parties raising similar concerns.
Unlike Polepole and Kindikwa, Malisa pursued legal action. However, his petition was dismissed by the High Court on August 22, 2025. The respondents in the matter, the CCM Board of Trustees and its Secretary General, were represented by Alex Mgongolwa and Fabian Donatus Msalya Mnada.
The case was presided over by three judges: Joachim Charles Tiganga, Evaristo Emmanuel Longopa, and Griffin Venance Mwakapeje. The judges dismissed the petition on two grounds: first, they argued that the petitioner failed to exhaust internal party remedies before approaching the court, and second, they highlighted defects in the affidavit submitted by the petitioner. Both issues were raised by the respondents as preliminary objections to the petition.
The court noted inconsistencies in the petitioner’s affidavit. In some parts, he was introduced as Dr. Godfrey Fataeli Mlamie Malisa, while in the verification section the title “Dr.” was omitted, leaving Godfrey Fataeli Mlamie Malisa. In another section completed by the Commissioner for Oaths, the name appeared as Godfrey Fataeli Malisa. The court argued this are three different people introduced in the affidavit.
“It is lucid that a person who appeared before the Commissioner for Oaths and was introduced by Denis Maringo [Malisa’s lawyer] is not the deponent, as per the records in the Court, it is one Godfrey Fataeli Malisa, while the petitioner, as he categorically introduced himself in both the Petition and the affidavit before deponing statements, is one Dr. Godfrey Fataeli Mlamie Malisa. With due respect to the counsel for the petitioner, these, in law, are three different persons, rendering the jurat of attestation incurably defective,” the court ruling reads.
On the issue of internal remedies, Malisa’s lawyer, Advocate Denis Maringo, argued that pursuing party remedies was impractical due to the limited time before names were submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), an argument the court rejected.
“We do not share that line of argument. The reason is that the act complained of was allegedly committed in January 2025. The Petitioner is said to have been aggrieved and to have expressed his grievances immediately thereafter.”
“The evidence of this is clear in the letter he wrote to the party’s Chairperson dated 11th February 2025 and proved by paragraph 4 of the affidavit, which notified the Chairperson of his intention to sue both the Party and its Registered Trustees. This act was performed almost five months later, in July 2025. That indicates that the petitioner had ample time to exhaust the internal remedies before seeking court intervention,” the court ruling reads.
According to the court, those remedies are outlined in CCM’s regulations, Kanuni za Uteuzi wa Wagombea Uongozi Katika Vyombo vya Dola [Regulations Governing the Nomination of Candidates for Leadership Positions in State Organs], which require all complaints at the national level to be submitted to the Secretary General of the party.
The judges also ruled that Malisa’s February 11, 2025, letter was not a valid complaint, as it merely informed the party chairperson of his intention to sue rather than filing an official complaint. Moreover, directing it to the Chairperson instead of the Secretary General further invalidated it.
On the issue of not exhausting the internal party remedy before going to court, Malisa’s counsel argued that seeking remedies within the party was unrealistic, since the same officials against whom the grievances were raised would also sit in judgment of the complaint. The court dismissed this line of reasoning.
“It is not an individual that sits to resolve the complaint; it is the “Kamati ya Siasa” (Political Affairs Committee) or “Kamati Kuu ya Halmashauri Kuu” (The Central Committee of the NEC) that sits to resolve the complaints,” the court ruling reads.
It continued: “Therefore, the complaint that the redress is unrealistic because the very entities and officials against whom these grievances are being brought are the very same who would sit on appeal against this complaint is unsubstantiated. We thus dismiss the complaint for being devoid of merit.”
In the case of Malisa’s query, the Central Committee of the NEC was the right organ for resolving the matter. The organ is headed by the Chairperson of the party.
Malisa was dismissed from the party in February 2025, after coming out publicly opposing the nomination. The party regional leadership said the reason for the ousting of Malisa is for going against party’s decision.
