Dodoma — The High Court has ordered that disciplinary proceedings against Tanganyika Law Society President Boniface Mwabukusi remain suspended until it decides his constitutional challenge to the system for disciplining advocates, while rejecting an application for the three-judge panel to step aside.
The October 19 ruling in Constitutional Case No. 000025918 of 2026 changes the practical effect of an earlier interim order. The National Advocates Committee case against Mwabukusi is now stayed pending the hearing and final determination of his constitutional petition, rather than only until complainant Chacha Mwita Nashon appeared before the court.
The panel of Justices Amir Mruma, Suleiman Hassan and Irene Musokwa also refused an application by Mwabukusi’s counsel to summon the committee’s chairperson or a member to explain an alleged continuation of the disciplinary process. It held that the request was not a properly instituted contempt application and made no finding that the committee or any individual had defied the court.
The ruling does not decide whether Mwabukusi committed professional misconduct, whether Nashon’s complaint is well founded, or whether the provisions of the Advocates Act challenged in the petition are constitutional. Those questions remain before the court, while the underlying disciplinary complaint remains pending before the committee.
Nashon’s application
Nashon lodged Application No. 04 of 2026 in May, alleging that Mwabukusi’s public comments about Tundu Lissu’s treason trial contravened Rule 137 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Regulations, 2018. The rule bars an advocate from commenting on a pending specific case in a manner that prejudges its outcome.
READ MORE: Boniface Mwabukusi: High Court Pauses Disciplinary Case as Bar President Challenges Legal Framework
Nashon seeks a finding of gross professional misconduct and Mwabukusi’s removal from the Roll of Advocates. Mwabukusi contests both the complaint and the legal framework, arguing in his petition that his statements conveyed a position adopted by the Tanganyika Law Society, rather than an individual attempt to prejudge Lissu’s case.
The National Advocates Committee is a statutory, quasi-judicial body that can hear allegations of advocate misconduct and, where appropriate, require an advocate to show cause why their name should not be removed from the Roll. Its authority is separate from the High Court’s current role in deciding the constitutional challenge.
At the October 16 hearing, Nashon told the court he was surprised that the original stay had been granted before he was heard. He also asked the judges to recuse themselves, saying he had learned from other advocates and media reports that substituted service was ordered because the bench was displeased at his earlier absence, leading him to fear he would not receive a fair hearing.
The court rejected that application after setting out the legal test: recusal may be warranted by an actual conflict, a personal or financial interest, or circumstances in which a fair-minded and informed observer would see a real possibility of bias. It said dissatisfaction with earlier decisions, judges’ legal views or strongly worded observations did not, without more, meet that threshold.
The judges also used the ruling to explain that the point of a summons is to give a person notice and an opportunity to answer a case. In a passage with implications beyond this dispute, the panel held that a telephone call, video call or electronic message may be a permissible means of notification in an age of advanced communications technology, provided it can be proved before the court.
Risk of conflicting decisions
On the stay itself, the bench said a conservatory order preserves the status quo while constitutional rights are determined. It said there was a real risk of conflicting decisions if the High Court and the committee continued simultaneously, writing that the disciplinary proceedings could resume after the constitutional case, subject to its outcome.
READ MORE: TLS President Mwabukusi Questioned for Hours Over Alleged Protest Financing
“Conservatory orders are intended to protect the rights of all parties,” the panel said. “Their grant does not mean that any party will be denied justice.”
The court drew a line between maintaining the stay and punishing an alleged breach of it. It said contempt said to have occurred outside court, such as disobedience of an order, must be pursued through a formal chamber application supported by an affidavit establishing the alleged contemnor’s knowledge of the order and deliberate disobedience.
Because no such application had been filed, the court refused the request to summon the committee chairperson or any member. The finding leaves open the possibility of a properly filed contempt application, but it does not itself decide whether the committee acted contrary to the October 7 order.
The immediate next stage will concern a preliminary objection raised in the constitutional case. State Attorney Erigh Rumisha must file submissions by October 26, Mwabukusi’s counsel must respond by November 2, and any rejoinder is due by November 9; the court set November 10 at 10 a.m. for a mention for orders.
Attention
The dispute has attracted attention because it combines a complaint about public comment on a live criminal case with a challenge to the structure of advocate discipline. The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers recognise lawyers’ right to participate in lawful public discussion about the law and administration of justice, while requiring adherence to professional standards and fair disciplinary procedures.
Five regional and international legal bodies, including the East Africa Law Society, the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute and the Pan African Lawyers Union, have called for the stay to be respected. Their statement argues that permanent removal from practice for communicating a bar association’s position would be exceptionally severe; it is an advocacy position, not a judicial finding.
Mwabukusi, who has separately been questioned by police over allegations he denies about financing October 29, 2025 demonstrations, posted on X before Monday’s ruling that the country needed “truth, justice and accountability.” Police had not publicly set out the basis or status of that separate inquiry when The Chanzo last reported it.
Lawyers behind the case told The Chanzo that the court’s decision on Monday just preserves Mwabukusi’s ability to practise while the constitutional case proceeds. It does not remove Nashon’s complaint, resolve the limits of public commentary by advocates, or settle the wider arguments over the independence of Tanzania’s legal profession.
