Nchimbi was facing CCM disciplinary action before resignation

Dar es Salaam. Former Vice President Emmanuel Nchimbi was already facing disciplinary action within CCM before he resigned from Government and retired from active politics, the party’s Ideology, Propaganda and Training Secretary Kenan Kihongosi has revealed.

Speaking in an interview with broadcaster Edwin Odemba, popularly known as Chief Odemba, yesterday, Mr Kihongosi said Dr Nchimbi had been summoned before the CCM Ethics Committee as a party member, rather than in his capacity as Vice President.

He rejected suggestions that the disciplinary process was linked to Dr Nchimbi’s resignation, saying the two matters should be treated separately.

“The party does not deal with resignation. The party does not deal with a position or title. He fulfilled his constitutional duty to resign, while the party fulfilled its responsibility to expel a member after being satisfied that there were offences,” Mr Kihongosi said.

Dr Nchimbi resigned as Vice President on September 4, 2026, after announcing his decision in a letter to President Samia Suluhu Hassan. CCM subsequently expelled him from the party.

Mr Kihongosi said the former Vice President had appeared before the Ethics Committee as a CCM member and not as the holder of a Government office.

“I was right first to say that we did not summon the Vice President. It was correct. He was not summoned as Vice President. The person who was summoned was a CCM member, Ambassador Dr Emmanuel J,” he said.

He said CCM dealt with members according to their party membership rather than the Government positions they held.

“Inside CCM, we do not recognise you by your positions. CCM recognises any leader by their membership and their card,” he said.

Mr Kihongosi confirmed that Dr Nchimbi had been summoned before the Ethics Committee but declined to disclose the reasons, saying the proceedings were confidential.

He said the reasons for the disciplinary action were known to Dr Nchimbi and the committee, adding that the party was obliged to protect the confidentiality of internal proceedings.

Asked why Dr Nchimbi was eventually expelled, Mr Kihongosi said the former Vice President had violated some party rules but again declined to identify the specific offences.

He said the expulsion followed a formal party process rather than an individual decision, noting that CCM’s disciplinary procedures provided for various punishments, including expulsion, a severe reprimand and a warning.

“Within CCM, nobody is bigger than the party. The party respects an individual’s dignity, but it also respects its ethics and the conduct expected of its members,” Mr Kihongosi said.

Mr Kihongosi also confirmed that he participated in the meetings that decided Dr Nchimbi’s expulsion and supported the outcome.

“Yes, I participated in those decisions and I supported his expulsion 100 per cent,” he said.

He rejected claims that CCM had planned to expel Dr Nchimbi days before his resignation.

“There was no plan to expel him. There was no plan to sit down and discuss him. The meeting that made the decision was arranged through the normal procedures of party meetings when a challenge arises,” he said.

He also dismissed suggestions that Dr Nchimbi’s public calls for Tanzanians to push for a new Constitution were behind his expulsion.

Mr Kihongosi said constitutional reform was already included in CCM’s election manifesto and that party and Government leaders were responsible for implementing it.

He said support from CCM members and affiliated organisations for Dr Nchimbi’s expulsion should not be viewed as a personal attack, but as support for decisions made by the party’s organs.

“The CCM Women’s Wing supported the decisions of the meetings, the youth supported the decisions of the meetings and the cadres speaking have supported the decisions of the meetings,” he said.

Mr Kihongosi maintained that Dr Nchimbi’s resignation was a constitutional matter, while his expulsion was a disciplinary matter arising from his conduct as a CCM member.

He said the party had therefore acted within its rules and procedures despite the two events occurring within the same period.