In an act of desperation, Chadema wrote an urgent letter to the deputy Registrar of the High Court asking for two orders: One, the trial judge recused himself on element of bias and second, his order banning Chadema operations was lifted.
Out of Court proceedings character and practice, Chadema didn’t cite any applicable laws that vest the deputy registrar with the jurisdiction to hear and determine the two matters before him.
Besides, there are no known court rules or procedures that allow the deputy registrar to entertain such matters that are already in a courtroom. The ban order can be reversed by the same judge who issued it through an application of review or by a superior court which is the Court of Appeal. Regrettably, there was no proceedings that match that rendering Chadema’s letter before the deputy registrar an exercise in futility.
Besides, the discretion to recuse himself is entirely on the trial judge who may opt to or not. However, once one party has lost faith in the trial judge, the precedent of the Appeals Court in Zabron Pangameza ruling is instructive:
“..where Litigants have lost faith with a trial judge, the judge must give the benefit of doubt to his irrational accusers…”
In Tanzania, if litigants lose faith in a trial judge, the appeals court might consider whether the judge should have recused themselves, particularly if there’s a reasonable basis to doubt their impartiality. TanzLII has reported that a judge facing accusations of bias or a loss of faith from litigants should consider stepping aside. The appeals court would examine the situation to ensure a fair trial and uphold the principle of an impartial judiciary.
Here’s a more detailed explanation:
Recusal is a key consideration:
If litigants express a lack of confidence in a trial judge, the appeals court will likely assess whether the judge should have recused themselves from the case.
Benefit of the doubt in recusal:
While judges are expected to be impartial, the Tanzanian legal system recognizes that a perception of bias can undermine the fairness of a trial. Therefore, if there’s a reasonable doubt about a judge’s impartiality, the appeals court might rule that the judge should have recused themselves.
Upholding the principle of impartiality:
TanzLII has also reported Tanzania’s legal framework, including the Constitution, emphasizes the importance of an independent and impartial judiciary. Appeals courts play a crucial role in ensuring this principle is upheld by reviewing decisions where there are concerns about bias.
Focus on fairness:
The appeals court’s decision will likely center on whether the judge’s continued involvement in the case created a reasonable apprehension of bias and, consequently, whether the litigant received a fair trial.
Example:
In the case Kilimanjaro Truck Company vs. [Unspecified Party], the TanzLII reported Justices of Appeal observed that a judge facing such accusations should consider stepping down unless the circumstances clearly indicate no bias.
Patently, the trial judge cannot continue with the matter before him unless he wants to confirm the worst fears of the litigants that he is an interested party.
Of more damage to Chadema’s application is an issue of lodging an omnibus application which asks for two different things that invoke different laws invoking different jurisdictions. Such an application is dead on arrival. It is unclear why Chadema allowed anger to overwhelm them to the extent even the basics of court procedures alluded to them.
The electorate ought to worry very much about Chadema’s leadership skills when it flounders on minor issues like this one. How much more will Chadema quake when faced with matters of national significance.
What was in the Chadema’s letter, and the way forward?
Based on the provided context and legal analysis, here is a breakdown of Chadema’s omnibus application and its implications:
1. The High Court’s Ban Order.
– On June 10, 2025, the High Court (Judge Hamidu Mwanga) suspended “all Chadema activities for 14 days”, froze its assets, and barred the use of party resources.
– The order stemmed from a lawsuit filed by three Zanzibar-based members (Said Issa Mohamed, Ahmed Rashid, Maulidah Anna Komu), alleging **discrimination in resource allocation** and violation of the Political Parties Act.
– Chadema’s lawyer, Jebra Kambole, withdrew during proceedings, citing procedural unfairness, leaving the party unrepresented.
2. Chadema’s Omnibus Application to the Deputy Registrar.
– Requests Made:
– Recusal of Judge Hamidu Mwanga due to alleged bias.
– Immediate lifting of the ban order.
– Legal Flaws:
– Jurisdictional Issues:
The deputy registrar lacks authority to review a judge’s order or compel recusal. Only the issuing judge (via review) or a superior court (Court of Appeal) can modify such orders.
– Procedural Impropriety:
An “omnibus” application combining distinct legal issues (recusal + ban reversal) violates court rules. Each requires separate motions grounded in specific laws.
– No Legal Basis Cited:
Chadema’s letter failed to reference applicable laws/rules empowering the deputy registrar.
3. Legal Precedent on Judicial Recusal.
– The Zabron Pangameza ruling (cited by Tanzania Law Library, TanzLII) states that judges must recuse themselves if litigants reasonably lose faith in their impartiality, even without proven bias.
– However, recusal remains “discretionary”. Judge Mwanga could reject the request if he deems no objective bias exists.
4. Viable Alternatives for Chadema.
– Appellate Review:
File a stay application with the Court of Appeal to suspend the ban pending trial.
– Formal Recusal Motion:
Submit a detailed motion to Judge Mwanga citing specific grounds for bias (e.g., handling of Kambole’s withdrawal).
– Expedited Main Hearing:
Focus on the June 24, 2025, hearing to contest the plaintiffs’ allegations.
5. Political Implications.
– The ban cripples Chadema’s “No Reforms, No Election” campaign amid broader repression:
– “Election ban” by the electoral commission.
– “Treason charges” against leader Tundu Lissu.
– “Revocation of subsidies” by the Registrar of Political Parties.
– Leadership Crisis:
The registrar nullified appointments of 8 senior leaders (e.g., John Mnyika, Godbless Lema), citing invalid quorum in their confirmation.
Key Events Timeline.
| No. | Date. | Event. |
| 1.0 | Jan 22, 2025. | Chadema NEC meeting appoints leaders; later challenged for lacking quorum. |
| 2.0 | Apr 12, 2025. | Chadema barred from elections for refusing to sign code of conduct. |
| 3.0 | Apr 24, 2025. | Officials (John Heche, John Mnyika) arrested amid protests supporting Tundu Lissu. |
| 4.0 | Jun 10, 2025. | High Court suspends Chadema activities, freezes assets. |
| 5.0 | Jun 24, 2025. | Scheduled hearing for the main case against Chadema. |
Conclusion.
Chadema’s application to the deputy registrar is “legally untenable” due to jurisdictional and procedural flaws. While recusal may be justifiable under the “Zabron Pangameza” precedent, the party’s haphazard approach undermines its credibility.
Strategic alternatives—like appellate intervention or a formal recusal motion—are more viable. The crisis reflects Tanzania’s escalating suppression of opposition, with Chadema’s capacity to function now hinging on judicial outcomes post-June 24, 2025.
