The Registrar of Political Parties, Judge Francis Mutungi, is in the business of manufacturing and sustaining conflicts with Chadema. Now, he has found a leeway to escalate his tensions with Chadema founded on mere “hearsay” and abuse of public office.
The Aftermath of the fallout of the recently concluded elections that crowned Tundu Antipas Lissu and his allies into the summit of Chadema leadership has inflicted some of the top leaders with incurable wounds. Some have rocked the boat from within, while others have bolted to CHAUMMA.
Those who opted to wage a guerilla war inside Chadema have found a sympathetic ear in the very partial Registrar of Political Parties, Judge Mutungi, who has made it his business to undermine Chadema as a necessary weapon to support CCM quest of everlasting hegemony.
This discourse reviews the issues pitting the Registrar of Political Parties against Chadema and expounds why the judicial route looks more and more likely as a final arbiter. Here are their bullfighting duels.
Lembrus Mchome, who has since been sacked from Chadema, was the one who wrote a letter to the Registrar of Political Parties complaining the quorum threshold was not reached during the session that ratified the nominations of eight topmost Chadema leaders. Mchome, by then, was the Same district chairperson of Chadema and, by virtue of his position, was a member of the meeting that had ratified those eight names.
The names the Registrar of Political Parties, Judge Mutungi, has refused to recognise are John Mnyika, Amani Golugwa, Ali Ibrahimu Juma, Godbless Lema, Dk. Rugemeleza Nshala, Rose Mayemba, Salima Kasanzu na Mr. Hafidhi Ali Saleh. The Registrar argues that these elected officials were ratified by an illegal meeting since the quorum was not secured. Moreover, he also surmised that there were two or three individuals who improperly participated in that meeting.
The problem for Judge Mutungi is multifold. One, he had written a letter to the Chadema secretary general, John Mnyika, whom he now claims he doesn’t recognise! If true, he doesn’t recognise Mnyika why did he write to him in the first place? He wrote to Mnyika because he recognised Mnyika was the official Chadema secretary general. By his own actions, Judge Mutungi has betrayed his real motives.
Secondly, is the lack of credibility of the complainant, Lembrus Mchome. Mchome didn’t attend the fateful meeting, rendering his complaint founded on hearsay. Moreover, Mchome didn’t reveal the source of his complaint. Who informed him the quorum was not reached and why that person didn’t lodge their misgivings to the secretary general according to Chadema’s constitution?
Third, under the Chadema constitution, there is an internal mechanism to resolve conflicts, rendering Judge Mutungi’s incursions at best premature and at worst illegal. Judge Mutungi doesn’t have any vestiges of jurisdiction to interfere with internal matters of Chadema until conflict resolution mechanisms have been fully exhausted. Until today, that process is yet to be dully exhausted.
Had Judge Mutungi followed the strictures of the Chadema constitution, he would have advised Mchome to first access his remedies under the Chadema constitution before seeking his office intervention, but Judge Mutungi’s overzealousness did him in. He exposed himself as the most partisan Chairperson of the office of registrar in history. We have never had anything comparable to Judge Mutungi in terms of disregard and contempt of the and acting as if he is the Lawgiver, which he isn’t.
What has the Registrar of Political Parties done so far?
The Registrar of Political Parties in Tanzania has taken significant actions against the opposition party Chadema, including suspending subsidies and threatening to deregister it. These measures are part of a broader pattern of legal and administrative pressure on the party, particularly in the lead-up to the 2025 elections. Below is a detailed analysis of the situation:
1. Suspension of Subsidies.
Chadema, as one of Tanzania’s largest opposition parties, receives substantial government subsidies (40% of monthly allocations, second only to the ruling CCM) to fund political activities like rallies and campaigns . However, recent actions by the Registrar’s office have targeted these funds:
Non-Compliance with Regulations:
The Registrar has emphasized strict adherence to the Political Parties Act, including financial audits and submission of expenditure reports. Failure to comply can result in subsidy suspensions.
Political Context:
The suspension aligns with broader government restrictions on opposition activities. For example, President Samia Suluhu Hassan’s administration has curtailed public rallies and political activism, framing them as disruptive to governance.
Financial Leverage:
Cutting subsidies weakens Chadema’s operational capacity, limiting its ability to organize and campaign effectively ahead of elections.
2. Threat of Deregistration.
The Registrar has repeatedly threatened to deregister Chadema, citing alleged legal violations:
Self-Defense Training Camps:
The Registrar claims Chadema’s establishment of “Red Brigade” self-defense units violates Section 19 of the Political Parties Act (1992), which prohibits militia-like activities. Chadema argues these camps were constitutionally approved in 2006 and endorsed by the Registrar at the time.
Leadership Appointments:
In 2025, the Registrar nullified Chadema’s leadership appointments (e.g., Secretary-General John Mnyika) over quorum disputes during internal meetings. Chadema rejected this, accusing the Registrar of overreach and bias.
Electoral Non-Compliance:
Chadema’s refusal to sign the 2025 electoral code of conduct—protesting unmet demands for reforms—led to its disqualification from elections. The Registrar framed this as a breach of legal obligations, further justifying deregistration threats .
3. Broader Political Suppression.
These actions are part of a systematic campaign to marginalize Chadema:
Legal Amendments:
The 2018 amendments to the Political Parties Act granted the Registrar immunity from lawsuits and expanded powers to regulate coalitions, finances, and internal party affairs. Critics argue these changes enable state interference in opposition activities.
Arrests and Charges:
Chadema’s chairman, Tundu Lissu, faces treason charges (carrying a potential death sentence) for advocating electoral reforms, which the government claims incites rebellion. His arrest and the party’s electoral ban have drawn international condemnation.
Crackdown on Dissent:
The government has restricted civic education, banned foreign funding for parties, and imposed harsh penalties (e.g., 20-year jail terms) for alleged “militia activities,” disproportionately targeting opposition members .
4. Chadema’s Response.
Chadema has resisted these measures, framing them as politically motivated:
Defiance of Directives:
The party rejected the Registrar’s annulment of its leadership, insisting its internal processes were lawful.
Electoral Boycott Threat:
Chadema’s “No Reforms, No Election” campaign reflects its refusal to participate in polls without guarantees of fairness, further escalating tensions with the government.
International Advocacy:
The party has sought global attention, with the European Parliament condemning Tanzania’s crackdown and calling for Lissu’s release .
5. Implications for Democracy
The Registrar’s actions underscore Tanzania’s shrinking democratic space:
Erosion of Opposition:
By stifling Chadema’s funding and legitimacy, the ruling CCM party consolidates power, risking one-party dominance.
International Repercussions:
Tanzania faces growing criticism from human rights groups and foreign governments, potentially affecting aid and diplomatic relations .
Public Sentiment:
Analysts warn that repression could fuel unrest, particularly among youth disillusioned with CCM’s governance .
Take Aways:
The suspension of subsidies and deregistration threats against Chadema reflect a calculated strategy to weaken Tanzania’s main opposition party. Legal frameworks are being weaponized to suppress dissent, raising concerns about the integrity of the 2025 elections and the future of multiparty democracy in the country. International observers and domestic advocates continue to call for transparency, fair judicial processes, and adherence to democratic principles.
The suspension of Chadema’s subsidies not anchored in law!
1. Reported Suspension of Subsidies.
– **Legal Basis**: The Political Parties Act requires parties to submit annual audited reports to the Registrar, which are then published in the official Gazette. Failure to comply allows the Registrar to suspend subsidies .
– **Chadema’s Response**: The party claims it submitted audited reports and hired private auditors after the Controller and Auditor General (CAG) cited resource constraints. However, the Registrar and PAC maintained that no reports were received .
2. Lack of Direct Government Notice.
While the suspension is widely reported in media and parliamentary discussions (), **no specific Gazette notice or official document is cited** in the search results. The Registrar’s authority to suspend subsidies is derived from the Political Parties Act, but the absence of a referenced notice suggests the decision may have been communicated administratively rather than through a formal public notice.
3. Broader Context of Political Repression.
The subsidy suspension aligns with a pattern of actions against Chadema, including:
Deregistration Threats:
The Registrar nullified Chadema’s leadership appointments over procedural disputes.
Electoral Ban:
Chadema was barred from the 2025 elections for refusing to sign a disputed electoral code of conduct.
Treason Charges:
Party chairman Tundu Lissu faces death penalty charges for advocating electoral reforms ().
These measures are framed as legal compliance but criticized as politically motivated to weaken opposition ahead of elections .
Conclusion.
The suspension of Chadema’s subsidies is based on hearsay, violates Chadema constitution of resolution of internal conflicts through party guidelines, and is not even gazetted to give it a legal imprimatur.
Registrar of political parties lacks legal mandate to resolve political party disputes powers reserved for the judiciary. Judge Francis Mutungi is merely expressing his own opinions but are not bound to Chadema and any attempts to suspend subsidies amount to abuse of public office.
Read more analysis by Rutashubanyuma Nestory
