Manyara – In a major legal victory for CHADEMA, the High Court has issued an interim injunction blocking the Registrar of Political Parties from taking further action against the party until a full hearing on the merits of the case.
The May 25, 2026, ruling raises critical questions regarding the registrar’s impartiality and the potential weaponisation of registration regulations against opposition groups.
Judge I.C. Mugeta, presiding over the High Court’s Manyara Sub-Registry in Babati, ruled that CHADEMA demonstrated sufficient grounds for emergency relief, identifying concerns over procedural bias and breaches of natural justice.
The court’s reasoning underscores a recognition of the fundamental threat that arbitrary suspensions of political activity pose to democratic governance.
Registrar’s action
On May 7, 2026, the Registrar demanded that CHADEMA’s Secretary General explain why the party should not be suspended or fined for alleged violations of the Political Parties Act.
Marked HA.322/362/16/A/22, the notice gave the party until 15:30 on May 20, 2026, to respond.
READ MORE: CHADEMA Fires Back at Registrar, Accusing Office of Constitutional Overreach
The allegations stemmed from official party statements criticising the government’s handling of the disputed October 29, 2025, elections and calling for accountability regarding post-election deaths.
The Registrar characterised these remarks as “scandalous, ridiculous, and inciteful” against the government and President Samia Suluhu Hassan.
On May 19, 2026, CHADEMA submitted a 27-page rebuttal, arguing that the Registrar was attempting to criminalise protected speech and usurp judicial authority.
Facing an uncertain outcome after the deadline, the party sought immediate judicial protection.
The case
Filed on May 21, 2026, the application was brought by the Secretary General and the Registered Trustees of CHADEMA, represented by advocates Mpare Mpoki, Nyaronyo Kicheere, and Hekima Mwasipu.
The case, Miscellaneous Cause No. 12812 of 2026, proceeded swiftly. Justice Mugeta set a schedule on the day of filing and heard the ex parte application on May 25, just four days later.
The respondents were not present at the hearing, having not yet been served with the application.
Justice Mugeta identified two primary triable issues necessitating intervention.
First, he questioned the inclusion of the Registered Trustees in the demand notice, noting their specific role in managing party property.
The judge stated: “Whether the Registered Trustees are also covered in that demand notice or they ought to have been included are triable issues worth consideration of the court.”
Second, the judge found that the Registrar’s decision to initiate allegations on his own motion (suomoto) raised serious doubts about impartiality, as he effectively acted as complainant, witness, and judge.
“Whether that fact makes the Registrar impartial and biased is a triable issue,” Justice Mugeta noted.
This finding is a significant blow to the Registrar’s standing and allows the court to examine whether regulatory powers have been used systematically to suppress political opposition.
Irreparable harm
In a thoughtful analysis, Justice Mugeta rejected the idea that suspending a political party’s activities could be remedied with money.
“I have tried to think of a situation where a loss occasioned by CHADEMA’s political activities suspension can be remedied by compensation, but I have failed to get one,” Justice Mugeta stated.
“Political activities… constitute the country’s governance and the citizens’ democratic rights exercise processes,” he noted, emphasising that the resulting loss of civic space and time cannot be undone.
READ MORE: Lipumba Ousted by Registrar Weeks After Speaking Out on Crackdown
The judge identified multiple forms of irreparable harm: the time lost during which the party cannot engage in political activities, the shrinking of civic space, and the inability to manage the party’s properties. These harms, Justice Mugeta reasoned, cannot be undone or compensated through damages.
The judge’s reasoning reflects an understanding that political participation is not merely a private interest that can be traded for money, but a fundamental component of democratic governance. Once lost, even temporarily, the opportunity to participate in the political process cannot be recovered.
Balance of convenience
The court found the balance of convenience leaned heavily toward CHADEMA, noting that even the threat of suspension posed an existential risk that outweighed any potential fine.
“Suspension might be the choice,” Justice Mugeta stated. “The loss to be suffered from the suspension shall be immeasurable, such that no kind of damages atonement can mitigate the loss.”
Justice Mugeta warned that such a suspension could lead to the “complete disappearance” of a party as members migrate elsewhere.
READ MORE: A Tale of Two Letters: Registrar’s Divergent Responses Fuel Claims of Political Bias
Furthermore, he highlighted the subjective nature of the allegations, stating that determining whether speech is “scandalous” is a matter for the judiciary, not administrative offices.
This observation undermines the registrar’s position by highlighting that determinations about criminal speech are matters for the courts, not administrative officials.
Order
The court granted an immediate interim order prohibiting the Registrar from taking any adverse action against CHADEMA until a full inter partes hearing can be held.
The judge stated: “For the foregoing, I have no flicker of doubt in my mind that this is a fit case to issue temporary injunctive orders of prohibition pending determination of this application inter partes.”
The interim order takes immediate effect and remains in force until the court determines the full application. The respondents will now have the opportunity to present their case at the inter partes hearing, where the full merits of the dispute will be considered.
Broader implications
The ruling is a major setback for the Registrar and amplifies ongoing concerns regarding the office’s independence.
Opposition groups have long alleged that the office serves as a tool for political suppression, pointing to a history of strict enforcement against the opposition while overlooking similar issues within the ruling CCM party.
Recent examples include the 2025 nullification of ACT Wazalendo’s nominee, Luhaga Mpina, and the 2026 ousting of CUF chairperson Ibrahim Lipumba following his criticism of government crackdowns.
In February 2026, the registrar nullified the election results of the Civic United Front (CUF), ousting its chairperson, Professor Ibrahim Lipumba, just weeks after he publicly criticised the government’s handling of the October 29 crackdown.
By identifying triable issues of bias, Justice Mugeta has opened the door for a judicial review that could fundamentally shift how political parties are regulated in Tanzania.
