Joseph Isangura
Tanzania’s ruling party, Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM), has dismissed allegations linking it to the court-ordered suspension of political activities by the main opposition party, Chama cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo (CHADEMA), saying the move is purely the result of internal disputes within the opposition party.
In a statement released on January 21, 2026, CCM said it had no involvement whatsoever in the legal process that led to CHADEMA being temporarily barred from carrying out political activities or using its assets. The party said claims suggesting political interference were misleading and unfairly questioned the independence of the judiciary.
According to CCM, the matter before the court was initiated by CHADEMA members themselves following disagreements over the party’s internal leadership and management. The members filed an application at the High Court seeking an interim injunction to stop all party activities until a substantive case involving the party’s trustees and senior officials is fully heard and determined. The court later granted the interim order, effectively freezing CHADEMA’s political operations until the main case is concluded.
CCM emphasized that the decision was reached through normal judicial procedures and not through pressure from any political actor. Party officials said disputes that are taken to court must be resolved through the legal system, regardless of whether they affect the ruling party or the opposition.
Also Read; Bobi Wine Rejects Court Challenge, Calls Peaceful Protests
The suspension has triggered intense public debate, largely because CHADEMA is a key player in Tanzania’s multi-party system and has, for years, been a vocal critic of the government on issues ranging from governance to electoral reforms. Any legal restriction affecting its operations therefore carries wider political and democratic implications.
Legal analysts say court involvement in internal party disputes is not unusual, particularly where questions arise over leadership authority, compliance with party constitutions, or control of party assets. They argue that such interventions should be viewed through the lens of the rule of law rather than as political maneuvering.
At the same time, civil society organizations and political observers have urged political parties to strengthen internal dialogue and dispute-resolution mechanisms to avoid prolonged court battles. They warn that extended legal restrictions on major political parties could limit political engagement and weaken public confidence in democratic institutions.
As the main case proceeds, the High Court is expected to hear full arguments from all sides before issuing a final ruling. Until then, CHADEMA remains legally restricted from conducting political activities, a situation that could affect its supporters and reshape the broader political environment.
Observers say the outcome of the case may set an important precedent for how internal party disputes are handled within Tanzania’s politics.
