The decision was delivered on Thursday, December 18, 2025, by Deputy Registrar Mr Hussein Mushi on behalf of Justice Hussein Mtembwa, who heard the matter.
Dar es Salaam. The High Court (Dar es Salaam Sub-Registry) has granted permission for the filing of a judicial review application challenging the legality of the Presidential Commission appointed to investigate incidents of breach of peace during and after the October 29, 2025 General Election.
The decision was delivered on Thursday, December 18, 2025, by Deputy Registrar Mr Hussein Mushi on behalf of Justice Hussein Mtembwa, who heard the matter. The ruling followed an application seeking leave to institute proceedings against the commission.
In its decision, the court said it was satisfied that the applicants had met all three legal thresholds required for the grant of leave and directed them to file the substantive application within 14 days from the date of the ruling.
However, the court declined to grant an additional request by the applicants to use the leave as an order to suspend the commission’s ongoing work pending the determination of the main case.
Reading the ruling, Mr Mushi said that although the court had the discretion to either grant or deny the request, it found that, in the wider public interest, it would not be appropriate to halt the work of the commission at this stage.
The application was filed by human rights defenders Ms Rosemary Mwakitwange and two advocates, Mr Edward Heche and Mr Deogratius Mahinyila, against the Attorney General and other respondents.
Those named include retired Chief Justice Chande and seven members of the commission: retired Chief Justice Prof Ibrahim Juma, former Chief Secretary Ambassador Ombeni Sefue, Ms Radhia Msuya and Ambassador Paul Meela.
Others are former Inspector General of Police Mr Said Mwema, Ambassador David Kapya, former Minister for Defence and National Service Ms Stergomena Tax, as well as the Tanganyika Law Society (TLS).
Commenting on the ruling, one of the applicants’ lawyers, Ms Hekima Mwasipu, said they would file the main application within the time set by the court and would seek orders to stop the commission’s activities.
“We will do so under a certificate of urgency starting today because this is an urgent matter. We believe the court will accord it the same urgency as it did the application for leave,” she said.
TLS lawyer Mr Ferdinand Makore described the decision as a victory, saying it opens the door for Tanzanians to interrogate fundamental issues surrounding the establishment of the commission, including whether the process complied with the law.
“As TLS, we stood shoulder to shoulder with the applicants after recognising that this case raises issues of broader public interest. TLS is mandated to provide legal advice, defend the rule of law and assist Tanzanians on legal matters,” he said.
The commission was appointed to investigate violence that resulted in the destruction of public and private property, infrastructure damage, deaths and injuries following protests that erupted in several cities and towns on October 29, 2025.
President Samia Suluhu Hassan established the commission on November 18, 2025, and it has since begun its work.
When the matter was heard on December 12, 2025, the applicants’ lawyers, led by Mr Mpale Mpoki and assisted by Ms Mwasipu, told the court that the applicants had met the three statutory requirements for the grant of leave.
These include the existence of a disputable issue requiring judicial determination, filing the application within six months of the decision being challenged, and demonstrating sufficient interest in the matter.
On the first requirement, Mr Mpoki submitted that a review of the affidavits and counter-affidavits showed the existence of a contested issue, noting that the applicants’ claims had been disputed by the respondents, who demanded proof.
The Government legal team, led by Mr Narindwa Sekimanga and assisted by Mr Daniel Nyakia and Mr Erigh Rumisha, did not dispute two of the requirements but challenged the existence of a genuine disputable issue.
Mr Rumisha argued that the applicants had failed to meet that threshold, claiming that their joint affidavit was largely made up of opinions, views and conclusions rather than substantive legal grounds.
