Judge Mwanga Refuses to Recuse Himself from Chadema Case

Print or Email This Article

 Judge Hamidu Mwanga of the High Court (Dar es Salaam Sub-Registry) has refused to recuse himself from hearing the dispute over resource allocation within the Party for Democracy and Progress (Chadema). 

The 2025 case was filed by Said Issa Mohamed (Chadema’s retired Vice Chairman for Zanzibar) and two trustees from Zanzibar—Ahmed Rashid Khamis and Maulida Anna Komu. The respondents are Chadema’s Registered Trustees.  

Judge Mwanga has presided over the case since its first mention on April 17, 2025. On June 23, 2025, the respondents requested his recusal, accusing him of bias in favor of the plaintiffs, a conflict of interest due to his prior roles, and nursing a “grudge” against the party. These allegations were heard in court on July 14, 2025. 

In his ruling on Monday, July 28, 2025, Judge Mwanga dismissed all grounds for recusal, stating they lacked legal merit. He clarified that the respondents’ objections stemmed from: 

1. His June 23, 2025 ruling on a temporary injunction application. 

2. His past work with the “Zanzibar Electoral Commission (ZEC)” and “National Electoral Commission (NEC)”. 

3. A complaint filed against him with the Judges’ Ethics Commission. 

Judge Mwanga emphasized that a judge cannot recuse themselves merely because one party is dissatisfied with a ruling or due to historical service in institutions unrelated to the case.

 He cited three established legal criteria for recusal: 

> “(i) Personal animosity between the judge and a party; 

> (ii) The judge’s relationship with a party; 

> (iii) The judge having a direct interest in the case’s outcome.” 

None applied here. Consequently, he will continue presiding until the case concludes.

Critical Viewpoints on the Matter: 

⚖️ 1. Legal Reasoning vs. Perceived Bias.

– Judge Mwanga’s stance adheres strictly to procedural law, arguing that dissatisfaction with rulings or past institutional roles (e.g., ZEC) does not legally necessitate recusal.

– Chadema’s counterargument:

The party asserts that his ZEC background—an institution Chadema has frequently criticized for electoral unfairness—creates an “objective conflict of interest”. This is compounded by the temporary injunction he issued on “June 10, 2025”, which suspended all Chadema activities and froze assets without allowing the party time to secure new legal representation after their lawyer withdrew. 

🚨 2. Due Process Concerns.

– The court’s refusal to adjourn the case after Chadema’s lawyer, Jebra Kambole, withdrew (citing procedural unfairness) led to an “ex parte” ruling. This denied Chadema the right to legal representation, violating principles of natural justice.

– Wider pattern:

Similar due process issues arose in a related case involving advocate “Edson Kilatu”, whom Judge Mwanga ordered arrested over forgery allegations without hearing his defense. 

🧩 3. Political Context and Broader Implications.

– Targeting opposition:

 The lawsuit coincides with Chadema’s “No Reforms, No Election” campaign, which challenges Tanzania’s ruling party (CCM). The injunction paralyzed Chadema’s operations months before the October 2025 elections.

– Systemic suppression:

Chadema’s leadership faces multiple legal battles: 

  – Chairman “Tundu Lissu” is jailed on treason charges.

  – The party is barred from elections by the electoral commission. 

– Judicial independence questioned:

Critics allege collusion between the judiciary and CCM, citing the court’s broad injunction (e.g., banning all leaders from “speaking to the media”) as disproportionate to the asset-dispute lawsuit.  Strikes as an attempt to muzzle the adrenalin of “No Reform, No Election.”

💎 4. Conclusion: Democratic Erosion or Legal Rigor?

Judge Mwanga’s decision may be procedurally sound, but its context—a pattern of legal actions crippling Tanzania’s main opposition—fuels perceptions of “judicial weaponization”. The African Court’s past rulings against Tanzania’s electoral repression (2018) and the timing of these cases suggest a systemic effort to undermine multiparty democracy. For genuine fairness, an independent review of the recusal petition and injunctions is critical.

Despite High Court Overruling Recusal Plea Past Conduct Critical To Determine An Element Of Bias.

Recusal proceedings are at most times based on past conduct in order to evaluate an element of “bias” otherwise such an assessment will be drawn from speculation of future conduct. This is what was decided in the Zabron Pangameza (supra). Review the judicial findings in that case leading to a ruling a lower court judge should have recused himself.

The judicial findings in “Zabron Pangameza” establish a critical precedent regarding judicial recusal based on past conduct as a determinant of bias, fundamentally shaping Tanzania’s approach to judicial impartiality. This analysis synthesizes the ruling’s core principles, their application in Judge Mwanga’s Chadema case, and broader jurisprudential implications. 

Judicial Recusal in Tanzania: Why “Zabron Pangameza” Condemns Judge Mwanga’s Dismissal of Past Conduct.

⚖️ 1. Core Holdings of “Zabron Pangameza” Ruling.

   – Reasonable Apprehension Over Actual Proof:

The Appeals Court held that recusal is warranted when litigants demonstrate a “reasonable loss of faith” in judicial impartiality, irrespective of whether actual bias is proven. This shifts focus from the judge’s self-assessment to the “litigant’s perspective.

   – Past Conduct as Objective Basis:

The ruling emphasized that past conduct (e.g., prior rulings, institutional affiliations) provides tangible evidence for assessing bias. Speculation about future conduct was deemed insufficient without historical anchors. 

   – Benefit of Doubt to Litigants:

 Judges must “give the benefit of doubt to irrational accusers” when faith is eroded, prioritizing public confidence in the judiciary over judicial prerogatives.

🔍 2. Application to Judge Mwanga’s Recusal Refusal.

   – Rejection of Past Conduct Relevance:

Judge Mwanga dismissed Chadema’s arguments grounded in his history with electoral commissions (ZEC/NEC) and prior rulings against the party, claiming they “lacked legal merit.” This directly contravened “Zabron”’s mandate to evaluate past conduct for bias indicators. 

   – Narrow Interpretation of “Proceeding“**:

Like Judge Katsas in the Guantánamo case (“al-Bahlul v. U.S.”), Mwanga treated his electoral commission role as unrelated to Chadema’s internal dispute. “Zabron” would require assessing whether such roles objectively foster apprehension of partiality. 

   – Procedural vs. Substantive Fairness:

Mwanga upheld procedural correctness (e.g., no “direct” interest in the case) but ignored *Zabron*’s substantive test: whether a reasonable litigant would perceive bias due to his affiliations. 

🌍 3. Comparative Jurisprudence on Past Conduct and Bias.

   – India’s “Real Danger” Test:

In “Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India” (1987), the Supreme Court prioritized the “reasonableness of apprehension” in the litigant’s mind over the judge’s self-perception—mirroring “Zabron”.

   – New Zealand’s “Fair-Minded Observer” Standard:

Requires recusal if past associations (e.g., prior legal work on similar issues) could lead a reasonable observer to doubt impartiality.

   – U.S. Codified Grounds:

Title 28 U.S. Code § 455 mandates recusal for prior government service involving “the same factual controversy,” rejecting Katsas/Mwanga-style distinctions between related proceedings. 

⚠️ 4. Systemic Implications of Ignoring Past Conduct.

   – Erosion of Public Trust:

 “Zabron” underscores that dismissing past conduct fuels perceptions of judicial weaponization. In Chadema’s case, Mwanga’s ties to electoral bodies—which the party historically criticized—created an “objective conflict”.

   – Tyranny of “Duty to Sit” Doctrine:

 Mwanga cited judicial necessity to justify non-recusal, but “Zabron” balances this against fairness. Tanzania’s lack of clear recusal rules (unlike U.S./U.K. frameworks) exacerbates this tension.

   – Appellate Remedial Gap:

 Chadema’s flawed omnibus motion (rejected for procedural errors) highlighted the absence of “Zabron”-aligned appellate mechanisms to review recusal refusals promptly. 

💎 Conclusion: “Zabron” as a Safeguard Against Judicial Arrogance.

The “Zabron Pangameza” ruling anchors recusal in an objective assessment of past conduct to prevent judges from becoming sole arbiters of their own impartiality.

Judge Mwanga’s refusal to engage with his institutional history—despite its relevance to Chadema’s discrimination claims—exposes a critical gap in Tanzania’s adherence to its own precedents.

 Codifying recusal guidelines (e.g., mandating written reasons, adopting New Zealand’s two-stage observer test) would operationalize “Zabron”’s vision of justice seen “and” believed.

> Legal Tests for Recusal Based on Past Conduct:

Quotes:

1. “Beyond Speculation: How Past Conduct Anchors Objective Bias Analysis Under *Zabron Pangameza.”

• “Zabron Pangameza Precedent: Past Conduct as Imperative Ground for Judicial Recusal in Bias Assessment“.