High Court to Rule Today on Challenge to Presidential Election Commission

Dar es Salaam – The High Court (Dar es Salaam Sub-Registry) is set to deliver a crucial ruling today regarding the legality of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into incidents of breaches of peace during the General Election of October 29, 2025.

Justice Hussein Mtembwa will deliver the ruling on Thursday, December 18, 2025, addressing two key contested issues from the application hearing.

The first issue concerns whether the applicants have established the existence of a genuine dispute requiring judicial determination. The second issue addresses whether granting leave to file a substantive case would automatically suspend the commission’s activities until the main case concludes.

Background of the Case

The case stems from violence and destruction of public and private infrastructure following demonstrations held on October 29, 2025, across several cities and towns. The incidents resulted in deaths, injuries, and significant property damage.

On November 18, 2025, President Samia Suluhu Hassan appointed a commission to investigate events before, during, and after the election. The commission, chaired by retired Chief Justice Mohamed Chande, officially launched on November 20, 2025.

Legal Challenge Filed

On November 27, 2025, activists and human rights defenders Rosemary Mwakitwange, along with advocates Edward Heche and Deogratius Mahinyila, filed an application against the Attorney General and other respondents.

The respondents include retired Chief Justice Chande, retired Chief Justice Prof. Ibrahim Juma, retired Chief Secretary Ambassador Ombeni Sefue, Radhia Msuya, Ambassador Paul Meela, former Inspector General of Police Said Mwema, Ambassador David Kapya, former Minister Stergomena Tax, and the Tanganyika Law Society (TLS).

Court Arguments

During the December 12, 2025 hearing of Miscellaneous Application No. 30210 of 2025, counsel for the applicants, Mpale Mpoki, assisted by Advocate Hekima Mwasipu, argued that all three legal requirements for granting leave had been satisfied.

These requirements include: existence of a contested issue requiring determination; filing within six months from the challenged decision; and demonstrating sufficient interest in the matter.

Mpoki referenced Rule 7(6) of the Judicial Review Procedure Rules, stating that granting leave operates as an automatic stay of the challenged decision’s implementation.

Senior State Attorney Narindwa Sekimanga, leading the government’s legal team with Senior State Attorney Daniel Nyakia and State Attorney Erigh Rumisha, opposed the application on behalf of the Attorney General and commission members.

The state attorneys disputed whether a genuine contested issue existed, arguing the applicants’ affidavit contained opinions and conclusions rather than substantive issues. They further argued that public interest should prevail over individual interests.

TLS counsel Ferdinand Makore supported the application, citing Rule 7(5) of the Judicial Review Procedure Rules, which empowers the Court to issue stay orders at the leave stage depending on circumstances.

Grounds for Challenge

The applicants seek orders of certiorari and prohibition to quash and restrain the President’s decision appointing commission members. They challenge the commission’s legality on several grounds:

The applicants argue the establishment violates the principle that no one should be a judge in their own cause, noting the appointing authority chairs the ruling Chama cha Mapinduzi party, which participated in and won the disputed election.

They claim former Minister Stergomena Tax is a suspect due to her role as Minister for Defence and National Service during the violence, and that retired Chief Justices cannot fairly investigate violence affecting judiciary property.

The applicants further allege the commission’s establishment violated the Commissions of Inquiry Act, Cap. 32 Revised Edition 2023, particularly section 16, claiming unclear objectives based on perceptions rather than constitutional principles.

They contend the phrase "investigation into incidents of breaches of peace" trivializes the serious impact including deaths, missing persons, and injuries.

The applicants also challenge the commission’s independence, noting it lacks representation from independent professional bodies, civil society organizations, religious bodies, or other stakeholders without conflicts of interest. They point out all members are retired public servants previously appointed by the President who took oaths of secrecy not revoked upon retirement.

The ruling is expected to have significant implications for the ongoing commission’s work and its authority to continue investigations.