Dar es Salaam – Following a High Court ruling on December 30, 2025, that granted the Alliance for Change and Transparency (ACT Wazalendo) leave to proceed with a judicial review, the party has now filed a substantive application asking the court to quash the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) decision to exclude it from the allocation of 115 special seats for women following the October 29, 2025 General Election.
The party is also seeking an order to compel the commission to re-allocate the seats in accordance with the law, arguing that INEC’s actions undermine the principles of fairness, transparency, and natural justice.
The case, scheduled for its first mention on January 19, 2026, puts the spotlight on the integrity of Tanzania’s electoral processes. It comes amidst growing international concern over the country’s democratic trajectory.
Both the African Union and the European Parliament have recently highlighted serious issues with the 2025 elections, including a lack of independence for the electoral commission and a crackdown on opposition parties.
At the heart of ACT Wazalendo’s legal challenge is the contention that INEC fundamentally misinterpreted and misapplied Article 78 of the Constitution, which governs the allocation of special seats. The party claims it won 2,222,162 votes, representing 6.77 per cent of the nationwide parliamentary vote, surpassing the five per cent threshold required for an allocation.
This should have entitled the party to a minimum of five seats out of the 115 announced by INEC on November 7, 2025. Instead, the ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) party was awarded 113 seats, whilst a smaller opposition party, Chama cha Ukombozi wa Umma (CHAUMMA), received two. ACT Wazalendo received none.
Flawed process
The party’s legal arguments centre on what it describes as a “procedurally and substantively flawed process.” ACT Wazalendo asserts that INEC acted prematurely and without transparency by allocating the seats without first disclosing the final, verified vote tallies to the participating political parties.
READ MORE: High Court of Tanzania Grants Opposition Party Leave to Challenge INEC’s Special Seats Allocation
The application argues that the commission failed to conduct any mandatory prior consultation with the party before making its decision, which is contrary to the principles of lawful administrative conduct. Furthermore, the party contends that the decision was made ex parte (for one party only), violating its constitutional right to a fair hearing before an adverse decision was rendered.
The court documents allege that INEC deliberately refrained from notifying the party of its total vote count, a necessary prerequisite for determining its entitlement to the special seats.
According to the affidavit filed by Mhonga Ruhwanya, a registered trustee of ACT Wazalendo, the commission was required to communicate the official tally for nationwide votes before making its decision, but failed to do so.
The party claims that until the date of filing its application, INEC had not released official records for the nationwide vote for Members of Parliament, nor had it requested ACT to present its final list of nominated women for the special seats.
An arguable case
When the government’s legal representatives initially challenged the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the matter was an electoral dispute that should be handled through an election petition rather than a judicial review, Judge S.E. Kisanya ruled that ACT Wazalendo had presented an arguable case that warranted a full hearing.
In granting leave, the judge determined that the application raised substantial questions of law regarding the interpretation of the constitution and electoral laws, which fall under the court’s supervisory jurisdiction. The court ruled that the application was neither frivolous nor an abuse of the court process, clearing the way for substantive judicial review.
The case carries significant implications for the rule of law in Tanzania, as it directly challenges the discretionary power of the electoral commission. Legal analysts suggest that a ruling in favour of ACT Wazalendo could set a precedent for holding the electoral body accountable and curbing arbitrary decision-making.
The outcome will be closely watched as an indicator of the judiciary’s independence and its capacity to act as a check on other branches of government.
