Why Heche Press Conference Was Barred by the Police?

Print or Email This Article

It all boils down to the interpretation of court ruling on Chadema whether it barred all operations of Chadema or activities that require funding from Chadema’s coffers.

A legal dispute pitting Chadema and its Zanzibar Trustees zeroes in on assets and resources distribution between Tanganyika and Zanzibar. How the ruling now seems to cover all Chadema operations remains confounding, and hotly disputed.

According to the police,  the court order estopped Chadema from doing anything until final determination of the proceedings now before the High Court. But is this the correct interpretation of the High Court preliminary ruling or the police have rewritten the ruling?

What does the court ruling say, and was it overreaching? Is it proper for the police to freeze all Chadema’s operations based on a court ruling that goes beyond the limits of a dispute? These and many more questions this discourse will attempt to navigate upon.

Police deliberate misinterpretation of the High Court Injunction scrutinized.

The barring of John Heche’s press conference by Tanzanian police stems from a **”controversial interpretation” of a High Court injunction issued on June 10, 2025, which temporarily halted all Chadema activities and froze its assets. Here is a detailed analysis of the legal and political context:

1. The High Court Ruling.

   – On June 10, 2025, the High Court (Dar es Salaam sub-registry) granted a temporary injunction “freezing all Chadema assets” and suspending “all political activities” until a substantive case over resource distribution between Mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar is resolved.

   – The case (“Civil Case No. 8323 of 2025”) was filed by three Chadema trustees from Zanzibar, alleging:

     – Unequal distribution of party assets and financial resources.

     – Religious and gender discrimination.

     – Statements threatening the Tanzania-Zanzibar Union.

   – The court dismissed Chadema’s preliminary objections, allowing the case to proceed. The injunction explicitly applied to the party’s Secretary-General, agents, and followers.

2. Police Interpretation of the Ruling.

   – Police interpreted the injunction as a **blanket ban** on all Chadema operations, including press conferences. They argued:

     – Any activity by Chadema members (even press conferences) violated the court order.

     – The asset freeze incapacitated the party financially, making logistical support for events impossible.

   – This view was reinforced by the court’s directive to “maintain status quo,” which police read as prohibiting “any organizational activity” pending the case’s resolution on June 24, 2025.

3. Legal Tensions and Criticisms.

   – Overreach Beyond the Lawsuit: 

     The original lawsuit focused narrowly on “resource allocation” and alleged discrimination within Chadema . Critics argue the police and court extended this to stifle all opposition activities, exceeding the case’s scope.

   – Operational Paralysis: 

     The asset freeze prevented Chadema from accessing funds for basic operations (e.g., renting venues, transporting members), indirectly justifying the police blockade of the press conference.

   – Due Process Concerns: 

     Chadema’s lawyers withdrew during the injunction hearing, calling the process unfair. The court proceeded “ex parte” (without Chadema’s representation), raising questions about procedural justice .

4. Political Context.

   – The injunction occurred amid a “broader crackdown” on Chadema:

     – Chairman Tundu Lissu was arrested for treason in April 2025 over calls for electoral reforms.

     – The party faces disqualification from the 2025 elections for rejecting a government-mandated “code of conduct“.

   – The government insists elections will proceed without reforms, while Chadema’s “No Reforms, No Election” campaign threatens to boycott the polls.

Key Events in Chadema Legal Dispute.

Conclusion.

The police barred Heche’s press conference by **extending the High Court’s injunction beyond its stated purpose**. While the ruling technically suspended all party activities, its application to a press conference—unrelated to resource distribution—reflects a pattern of “using legal mechanisms to suppress dissent”.

The government’s rejection of electoral reforms and targeting of opposition figures  further suggests this was a politically motivated enforcement. The substantive court hearing on June 24 will determine whether the injunction’s sweeping scope is legally sustainable.

Read more analysis by Rutashubanyuma Nestory