Babati. The High Court of Tanzania at Babati Sub-Registry in Manyara Region has issued a temporary order restraining the Registrar of Political Parties (RPPs) from taking action against opposition Chadema.
The ex parte interim prohibitory order was issued on Monday, May 25, 2026 by Justice Irvin Mugeta in a brief ruling on an application seeking leave to commence injunction proceedings.
Application No. 12812 of 2026 was filed by Chadema’s Secretary General and Board of Trustees against the RPPs following a letter dated May 7, 2026 requiring the party to explain alleged breaches.
In the letter produced in court, the Registrar wrote to Chadema under the heading: “Re: Submission of explanations regarding alleged breach of political parties law in your party activities (Chadema).”
The response was required by May 20, 2026 at 3:30pm, and after the deadline lapsed, the Registrar indicated that action could follow at any time. Chadema then sought court protection.
Chadema lawyers’ submissions
A three-lawyer team led by Mpare Mpoki, Nyaronyo Kicheere and Hekima Mwasipu urged the court to grant ex parte orders, citing urgency over possible regulatory action.
The application was supported by affidavits from Board of Trustees members, Ms Ruth Mollel, Ms Mary Joachim and Dr Azavel Lwaitama.
They said there were indications the RPPs had already resolved to suspend Chadema or impose measures that could bar it from political activity.
Mr Mpoki submitted that unless restrained, the RPPs could suspend the party’s registration or impose penalties at any time.
He said the concern arose after the Deputy RPPs appeared on ITV on or before May 16, 2026, and suggested Chadema could be banned if it failed to give satisfactory explanations.
The applicants further argued that the Registrar had acted with bias and had already formed an adverse view against the party.
Mr Mpoki also submitted that the Registrar would act as complainant, witness and adjudicator in his own cause, contrary to principles of natural justice.
He further argued that the notice did not include the party’s registered trustees, exposing them to possible adverse action without being heard.
The judge’s ruling
Justice Mugeta held that the court was only required to determine whether sufficient grounds existed for interim relief.
He said an interim prohibitory order is discretionary and must meet legal thresholds, including an arguable case, risk of irreparable harm, and balance of convenience.
He observed that Chadema is a political party engaged in political activity, owning property, with a Secretary General managing operations and trustees overseeing assets.
“In reality, as counsel Mpoki submitted, the notice is addressed only to the Secretary General. Whether trustees should also be included is a material issue,” he said.
He further noted the allegation that the RPPs acted as complainant, witness and adjudicator, “Whether that amounts to bias is for determination after hearing both sides,”
The judge found that the application disclosed a triable case.
On irreparable harm, Justice Mugeta said such harm cannot be adequately compensated in monetary terms.
“I have considered what compensation Chadema would receive if its political activities were suspended. I cannot see any,” he said.
He stressed that political activity is central to governance and democratic participation.
Suspension, he said, would result in irreparable loss, including lost time and inability to participate in political processes.
He added that it would also limit citizen participation and disrupt party administration.
Justice Mugeta noted that fines could be compensated financially, unlike suspension of political activity, “Suspension would cause immeasurable loss.”
Assessment of RPPs’ grounds
The judge noted allegations that Chadema had made defamatory and inflammatory remarks against government leaders, including the President.
Chadema denied the claims, insisting its actions were within constitutional opposition rights.
“The question whether statements amount to defamation depends on context,” he said.
He added that suspension could have far-reaching effects, including loss of membership and weakened democratic participation.
He concluded that the inconvenience to Chadema outweighed that of the RPPs.
“This is a proper case for interim orders restraining action pending determination,” he ruled.
No costs were awarded as the order was issued ex parte and the matter will return for inter partes hearing on a date to be fixed.
Register to begin your journey to our premium contentSubscribe for full access to premium content
