Tanzania's High Court halts Chadema activities temporarily, freezes assets

Reacting to the ruling, Chadema Vice Chairman (Mainland) John Heche said the party’s leadership would issue an official response following an internal meeting.

“I cannot say anything for now until the leaders meet for a session. After the meeting, we will issue an official statement,” said Mr Heche, who, alongside other senior party officials, is currently touring Tabora, Kigoma, and Katavi regions.

The main case, which prompted the injunction, is set for its first hearing on June 24, 2025.

It was filed by Chadema’s retired Vice Chairman (Zanzibar), Mr Said Issa Mohamed, and trustees Mr Ahmed Rashid Khamis and Ms Maulida Anna Komu, all from Zanzibar.

The defendants are Chadema’s Board of Trustees and the party’s Secretary-General. The matter is before Judge Hamidu Mwanga.

Earlier in the day, Judge Mwanga dismissed a preliminary objection by Chadema, which sought to strike out the case on nine grounds before the plaintiffs’ arguments could be heard.

Chadema had contended that the plaintiffs had not specified the monetary sum being claimed, failed to exhaust internal party dispute resolution mechanisms before resorting to court, and omitted affidavits from the second and third plaintiffs.

The party further argued that the plaintiffs, being members of the Board of Trustees, could not sue the Board, and lacked legal standing to sue the Secretary-General.

Chadema also claimed the plaintiffs had not cited the specific law giving the court jurisdiction.

However, after analysing each point in a written submission, Judge Mwanga ruled that the objections were without legal merit.

“Considering this analysis, I am satisfied that this objection lacks substance and is dismissed. I order that the main case proceed to hearing on June 24, 2025,” said the judge.

With the preliminary objection dismissed, the court proceeded to hear the application for a temporary injunction.

Chadema raised similar objections against the injunction application, which the plaintiffs countered by challenging the party’s replying affidavit on five legal grounds.

Judge Mwanga initially directed that objections related to the injunction be heard orally.

The outcome of the main case objection determined the viability of the injunction; a successful objection would have nullified both the main suit and the injunction.

Following the ruling allowing the main case to proceed, the court also heard Chadema’s objection to the injunction application, the plaintiffs’ counter-objection, and the injunction itself.

This culminated in the decision to temporarily suspend all Chadema political activities and freeze its assets pending the case’s conclusion.

The case took another turn when Chadema’s lawyer, Mr Jebra Kambole, withdrew from the injunction hearing, allowing the application to proceed ex parte (without one party).

“I cannot continue with this matter. I request to withdraw so that my clients may have time to find another lawyer,” Mr Kambole told the court before leaving with party supporters.

Filed as Civil Case Number 8323 of 2025, the plaintiffs are seeking court declarations and orders that Chadema’s leadership has violated the Political Parties Act and the party’s constitution.

They allege unequal distribution of assets and financial resources between Zanzibar and Mainland Tanzania, and accuse the leadership of religious and gender discrimination.

They further claim that public statements have been made with the intent to disrupt the Union between the two parts of the United Republic of Tanzania.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare that the party has violated Section 6A (1), (2), and (5) of the Political Parties Act, Cap. 258, Revised Edition of 2019.

They are also seek a ruling that the current allocation of funds and assets between the two regions is unlawful, and request an order directing compliance with the relevant sections of the law.

Additionally, they are asking the court to issue a permanent injunction against the use of party assets and funds until the respondents comply with legal requirements, along with an order for the defendants to cover the costs of the case and any other relief deemed appropriate.