Unless something drastically changes in the High Court, Hon. Mpina will not be in the ballot box following the Registrar of Political Parties ruling against his candidature. The Registrar says Mpina’s nomination had irrevocably violated ACT-Wazalendo constitution, rules and regulations. Therefore, he cannot be their presidential candidate.
ACT-Wazalendo is livid that the office of registrar of political parties is being used to puncture their presidential aspirations. They feel if CCM can ignore their constitution in the presence of the registrar of political parties they too who had changed their constitution, rules and regulations to allow Hon. Mpina to seek the presidency deserved much better.
ACT-Wazalendo reads double standards, bias and institutional discrimination. They have moved to High Court to seek the Registrar’s prohibition orders quashed, set aside, their status quo ante restored with costs. It is a tough call knowing how our courts show deference to the executive.
CCM presidential nominations were unconstitutional but courts have refused to entertain any legal assault hiding themselves under the guises of preliminary objections. So long as the executive interests are on the line, the courts will ferret excuses to strike out any litigation that will hurt their employer. Tanzania courts are not independent, at all.
The office of registrar of political parties and INEC have been apportioned too many “quasi judicial powers” dedicating them like tribunals on matters of vested interests. As a result, whatever they decide falls into categories of “kangaroo courts” since they are “judges of their own causes”. Opposition never gets a fair hearing in such legal convoluted environments.
Temporarily, the litigant Monalisa Joseph Ndala has been varying her neck in victory penning down a jubilant missive panning out what was at stake. To her critics, she has sold her soul to the devil: CCM. In the meantime, ACT-Wazalendo is nursing her grave wounds: Political decapitation right before the crucial elections or lack of it.
Where ACT-Wazalendo is traversing through is a route to perdition, and there are optimal options available to it.
The Registrar’s Gavel: How Quasi-Judicial Powers Are Shaping Tanzania’s Election.
Analysis of Luhaga Mpina’s Presidential Candidacy Challenge: Legal, Political, and Institutional Implications in Tanzania
Introduction: Legal and Political Context.
The political landscape in Tanzania has reached a critical juncture with the controversial disqualification of Luhaga Mpina as ACT-Wazalendo’s presidential candidate for the October 2025 general elections. This development represents a significant test for democratic institutions in Tanzania and highlights the ongoing tension between the ruling party Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) and opposition forces.
The office of the Registrar of Political Parties has emerged as a central player in this drama, wielding what many observers consider quasi-judicial powers that effectively determine which candidates can participate in the electoral process. The situation reflects broader patterns of political repression documented by international human rights organizations, who note increasing restrictions on opposition parties, media freedoms, and civil society in the lead-up to elections.
The electoral framework in Tanzania operates under the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977, which establishes the basic structure for multi-party democracy while granting significant powers to state institutions like the Registrar of Political Parties and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
According to the Wikipedia entry on Tanzania’s judiciary, the court system includes Primary Courts, District Courts, High Courts, and the Court of Appeal, with a separate structure for Zanzibar. This institutional framework is now being tested as ACT-Wazalendo challenges what it perceives as biased application of electoral laws designed to protect the ruling party’s dominance.
Historical Context: Opposition Politics in Tanzania.
Tanzania’s political history since independence in 1961 has experienced significant fluctuations in its treatment of opposition parties. From 1965 to 1992, Tanzania operated as a “de jure one-party state” with CCM as the only legal political organization. Following internal advocacy and global pressure, multiparty democracy was reintroduced in 1992, leading to the legalization of opposition parties including Chama cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo (CHADEMA), Civic United Front (CUF), and ACT-Wazalendo.
Despite this formal openness, the period from 2015 to 2021 under President John Magufuli witnessed a significant decline in political freedoms, with opposition rallies banned, media outlets shut down or fined, and opposition leaders facing various forms of repression.
The current situation facing ACT-Wazalendo follows a familiar pattern established in the 2020 elections when main opposition parties were systematically excluded from meaningful participation. Most notably, CHADEMA, another major opposition party, has already been disqualified from contesting the 2025 elections for refusing to sign what it deemed an unconstitutional electoral code of conduct without prior meaningful reforms.
The targeting of opposition figures has extended beyond electoral politics, with CHADEMA leader Tundu Lissu currently facing politically motivated treason charges and being held in custody without bail since April 2025. Against this backdrop, Mpina’s disqualification represents the latest manifestation of what opposition parties describe as institutional bias favoring the ruling party.
Chronology of Events: Mpina’s Nomination and Disqualification.
Defection and Nomination: Luhaga Mpina, a former CCM cabinet minister and Member of Parliament for Kisesa, officially joined ACT-Wazalendo on August 4, 2025, after being excluded from CCM’s list of parliamentary aspirants during its internal nomination process.
His exclusion from CCM reportedly followed his public criticism of President Samia Suluhu Hassan’s government. Within days of joining ACT-Wazalendo, Mpina was formally endorsed as one of the party’s presidential candidates during a special session of the party’s Central Committee on August 5, 2025.
This rapid ascent triggered internal tensions within ACT-Wazalendo, with party leader Dorothy Semu initially resisting pressure to withdraw her own presidential ambitions in favor of Mpina.
Internal Party Challenge and Registrar’s Intervention: The nomination process faced an internal challenge on August 16, 2025, when Monalisa Ndala, the party’s publicity secretary for the Dar es Salaam region, wrote to Secretary-General Ado Shaibu alleging procedural violations in Mpina’s nomination.
Ndala specifically argued that Mpina’s nomination violated the ACT-Wazalendo 2024 Election Rules, which required presidential candidates to have been party members for at least seven days before the nomination process began—a requirement Mpina failed to meet as he had joined just days earlier.
.When party leadership did not respond to her satisfaction, Ndala escalated the matter to the Registrar of Political Parties on August 19, 2025, copying the National Independent Electoral Commission.
The Registrar’s Decision: After summoning both parties for a hearing on August 23, 2025, the Registrar of Political Parties issued a ruling on August 26, 2025, nullifying Mpina’s nomination. The Registrar determined that the ACT-Wazalendo 2024 Election Rules applied to presidential nominations and that Mpina had not met the seven-day membership requirement prior to nomination.
The Registrar further noted that Mpina had missed the May 25, 2025 deadline for nomination applications, as he was not yet a party member by that date . This decision effectively barred Mpina from running as ACT-Wazalendo’s presidential candidate, despite the party having already completed the nomination process with INEC.
Legal Analysis: Arguments and Counterarguments.
The Registrar’s Legal Basis: The Office of the Registrar of Political Parties based its decision on procedural grounds, specifically citing violations of ACT-Wazalendo’s own internal rules. According to the Registrar, the party’s 2024 Election Rules established clear requirements for presidential candidates, including the seven-day membership rule and the May 25 deadline for nomination applications.
The Registrar maintained that these rules had been properly registered with their office and therefore had legal force. From this perspective, the decision represents merely the enforcement of party rules rather than external interference, as claimed by Ndala who described the decision as “a victory for the Constitution and the rule of law“
ACT-Wazalendo’s Counterarguments: ACT-Wazalendo has mounted a multifaceted challenge to the Registrar’s decision, arguing both procedural and substantive points:
Jurisdictional Argument: The party contends that the Registrar exceeded its authority by interfering in an ongoing electoral process after nomination forms had already been issued and completed.
Secretary-General Ado Shaibu stated, “The Registrar of Political Parties has no authority to interfere in the election process once nomination forms have been issued and candidates are completing the required procedures, except through formal objections“.
Procedural Argument:
The party maintains that the proper channel for challenging Mpina’s eligibility would have been through the formal objection process provided under Sections 36 and 37 of the Presidential, Parliamentary and Councillors Elections Act, 2024 and Regulation 22 of the 2025 Regulations.
Constitutional Argument: ACT-Wazalendo has framed the Registrar’s actions as a violation of constitutional principles, particularly the independence of electoral institutions from executive interference.
Institutional Framework and Quasi-Judicial Powers.
A central issue in this controversy concerns the expanded authority of institutions like the Registrar of Political Parties and INEC, which have been granted significant “quasi-judicial powers” that effectively allow them to function as tribunals in electoral matters.
Critics argue that this creates a conflict of interest where these institutions become “judges in their own cause,” particularly when their decisions align with the interests of the ruling party. The concentration of these powers in administrative bodies that are nominally independent but practically influenced by the executive branch raises fundamental questions about the separation of powers and due process in electoral disputes.
Political Implications and Broader Context.
Impact on Democratic Process: The disqualification of Mpina represents a significant blow to electoral competition in Tanzania’s 2025 general elections. As a former CCM minister with nationwide recognition and parliamentary experience, Mpina was viewed as a potentially formidable candidate who could mount a serious challenge to President Samia Suluhu Hassan.
His removal from the ballot reduces voter choice and undermines the credibility of the electoral process. International human rights organizations have expressed concern that these developments reflect a broader pattern of suppressing dissent and limiting political competition in Tanzania.
The situation is particularly concerning given that CHADEMA, another major opposition party, has already been disqualified from contesting the elections.
With ACT-Wazalendo now facing the exclusion of its presidential candidate, the ruling CCM party appears to face significantly reduced competition in the upcoming elections.
This narrowing of political space occurs alongside other restrictions on civil liberties, including internet freedom limitations, suspension of online publications, and blocking of social media platforms like X (Twitter).
Regional and International Implications: Tanzania’s democratic backsliding has attracted regional and international attention. The arrest of opposition figures and exclusion of parties from elections has led to diplomatic tensions, particularly when foreign human rights activists attempting to observe proceedings have been denied entry or detained.
President Samia Suluhu Hassan has warned foreign activists against “invading and interfering in our affairs,” signaling a more assertive stance against international election monitoring and criticism. These developments have significant implications for Tanzania’s relations with traditional donors and regional partners, potentially affecting economic cooperation and development assistance.
Comparative Analysis: Past Cases and Patterns.
Historical Precedents of Opposition Exclusion: The current situation facing ACT-Wazalendo follows a familiar pattern in Tanzanian politics. In the 2020 general elections, multiple opposition candidates were disqualified through various legal and administrative mechanisms, while opposition rallies were systematically disrupted or banned.
The most prominent case involved Tundu Lissu, who returned from exile after surviving an assassination attempt only to face numerous legal challenges that limited his campaign effectiveness.
The 2025 elections appear to be following a similar script, with both CHADEMA and now ACT-Wazalendo facing exclusion from the process through what opposition leaders describe as politically motivated interventions by state institutions.
Regional Comparisons: In Tanzania, the Ballot Box is Barred Before the Campaign Even Begins: Tanzania’s situation reflects broader trends in East African politics, where incumbent parties often use state institutions to constrain opposition movements. However, Tanzania’s approach has been distinguished by the systematic use of legal and administrative mechanisms rather than overt electoral fraud.
The reliance on party rules, registration requirements, and electoral codes of conduct to disqualify opponents represents a more sophisticated form of electoral manipulation that maintains a veneer of legality while achieving the same result as more blatant methods used in other contexts.
Potential Resolutions and Future Options.
Legal Avenues: Court Battle Looms as Tanzania’s Registrar Blocks Key Opposition Candidate: ACT-Wazalendo has announced its intention to challenge the Registrar’s decision in the High Court, seeking both an injunction to suspend the decision and a full hearing on the merits of the case.
The party’s legal strategy will likely focus on jurisdictional arguments, contending that the Registrar exceeded its authority by intervening after the nomination process was substantially completed. However, as noted in the original query, Tanzanian courts have historically shown “deference to the executive” in politically sensitive cases, particularly those involving “executive interests“. This pattern of judicial behavior suggests that ACT-Wazalendo faces significant obstacles in the legal arena.
Political and Diplomatic Options: Beyond the legal realm, ACT-Wazalendo may pursue political mobilization strategies to pressure the government. These could include public protests, international advocacy, and coalition-building with other opposition and civil society groups.
The party might also leverage diplomatic channels, appealing to regional bodies like the African Union and the East African Community, as well as international partners who have expressed concern about Tanzania’s democratic trajectory. However, the government has demonstrated willingness to suppress protests and limit international scrutiny, as evidenced by its treatment of foreign activists attempting to observe opposition trials.
Institutional Reform Advocacy: Regardless of the immediate outcome of Mpina’s candidacy challenge, ACT-Wazalendo and other opposition forces will likely intensify their calls for structural electoral reforms to create a more level playing field in future elections. These reforms would likely include measures to ensure the genuine independence of electoral institutions, revise nomination procedures, and guarantee equal access to media and public spaces for campaign activities.
The original query references the opposition’s “No Reforms, No Election” campaign, which reflects this broader demand for institutional changes rather than merely contesting individual cases of exclusion .
Conclusion: Democratic Implications and Future Prospects.
The controversy surrounding Luhaga Mpina’s presidential candidacy represents more than just a technical dispute over party rules and nomination procedures. It reflects fundamental questions about the nature of democracy in Tanzania and the ability of opposition forces to compete fairly in the political arena.
The concentration of quasi-judicial powers in institutions like the Registrar of Political Parties, combined with perceived judicial deference to executive interests, creates a system where legal and administrative mechanisms can be used to limit political competition while maintaining a veneer of legality.
The outcome of this case will have significant implications for Tanzania’s political future. If the High Court upholds the Registrar’s decision, it will reinforce opposition claims that state institutions are systematically biased in favor of the ruling party, potentially further eroding public trust in electoral processes.
Conversely, if the court rules in favor of ACT-Wazalendo, it would represent a rare instance of judicial independence in a politically sensitive case, potentially strengthening democratic institutions. Regardless of the immediate outcome, the case highlights the ongoing struggle between authoritarian tendencies and democratic aspirations in Tanzania, a struggle with implications for the entire East African region.
As Tanzania approaches its October 2025 elections, the international community will be watching closely to see whether the country upholds its constitutional commitments to multiparty democracy or continues its trajectory toward increasingly authoritarian governance. The treatment of opposition candidates like Mpina will serve as a key indicator of Tanzania’s democratic health and its commitment to genuine political pluralism.
