How legal setback frustrated Mpina’s presidential ambition

Mr Mpina, a former cabinet minister and long-serving legislator who defected from Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) earlier this year, had been overwhelmingly endorsed by ACT-Wazalendo’s General Assembly on August 6, 2025, as the party’s presidential candidate.

But his political ascent was abruptly halted after the Registrar of Political Parties annulled his endorsement, citing internal objections and alleged procedural irregularities.

A party member, Ms Monalisa Ndala, lodged a complaint challenging the validity of Mr Mpina’s nomination, arguing that it contravened ACT-Wazalendo’s 2015 constitution.

The Registrar subsequently instructed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) not to accept Mr Mpina’s nomination papers—a move that triggered a legal storm and exposed the fragility of internal democracy within opposition parties.

Refusing to concede defeat, ACT-Wazalendo’s Board of Trustees and Mr Mpina filed a petition before the High Court on August 27, 2025, contesting the Registrar’s directive.

In an initial victory for the party, the court, on September 11, 2025, ruled in favour of Mr Mpina, directing INEC to receive his nomination papers, arguing that the Commission’s earlier refusal had violated Article 13(6)(a) of the Constitution by denying him the right to be heard.

Buoyed by the ruling, Mr Mpina submitted his nomination forms two days later, on September 13, seemingly reviving his presidential hopes.

But the reprieve was short-lived. Within days, two rival aspirants, joined by the Attorney General, filed fresh objections that INEC upheld, effectively invalidating his candidacy once again.

Determined to fight on, ACT-Wazalendo’s Board and Mr Mpina returned to court on September 15, arguing through their lawyers, Mr John Seka and Mr Edson Kilatu, that both the Registrar and the Commission had overstepped their authority.

They contended that the Registrar had misinterpreted the party’s constitution, acted beyond his jurisdiction, and abused his powers by nullifying a legitimate nomination.

“The first respondent exercised authority over internal party elections for an improper purpose—to exclude the second applicant from the presidential race,” reads part of their application.

The petitioners maintained that the decision was unlawful, irrational, and malicious, noting that no objections had been raised during the General Assembly where Mr Mpina was endorsed.

Despite the spirited challenge, the legal tide turned against them. On October 15, 2025, the High Court’s Dodoma Registry, presided over by Justice Fredrick Manyanda, sitting with Justices Sylvester Kainda and Abdallah Gonzi, dismissed the constitutional petition.

The three-judge bench held that the Constitution bars interference in the functions of INEC, affirming that the Commission had acted within its constitutional mandate.

With that judgment, Mr Mpina’s presidential dream officially ended, closing one of the most dramatic nomination sagas in Tanzania’s recent political history.

His exclusion left 17 presidential contenders to vie for the nation’s top office.

The legal and political ripple effects of the ruling, however, continue to reverberate within the opposition camp. Analysts say the case underscores the persistent challenges facing political parties in managing internal governance, candidate selection, and compliance with regulatory frameworks.

According to Dr Richard Mbunda, a political science lecturer at the University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM), the decision was legally unsurprising given the constitutional protection accorded to INEC’s decisions.

“The Commission is insulated from external interference, and its decisions are final unless the law provides otherwise,” he said, adding “What this episode highlights is the urgent need to reform electoral laws to ensure a fairer playing field for all political actors.”

Dr Mbunda observed that while Mr Mpina’s exclusion may appear politically motivated to some, the case would likely serve as an important legal precedent and a cautionary tale for future aspirants navigating Tanzania’s complex electoral system.

“His persistence and legal pursuit offer political scientists and constitutional lawyers a critical case study in the intersection of party autonomy and state regulatory oversight,” he noted.

Another scholar, Dr Paul Loisulie, a political science and public administration lecturer at the University of Dodoma (Udom), shared similar sentiments, arguing that the saga was as much a legal issue as it was a reflection of internal party dynamics.

“While the court decisions were grounded in law, they also reveal how political newcomers can face institutional resistance within their new parties,” he said. “Opposition parties must therefore strengthen internal democracy and long-term planning if they are to avoid similar pitfalls in future elections.” 

He added that the episode should inspire political parties to invest early in nurturing credible candidates and addressing constitutional loopholes that expose them to administrative interventions.

“Elections are not won in courtrooms; they are won through foresight, unity, and organisational preparedness,” Dr Loisulie remarked.

As Tanzanians head to the polls today, the absence of Luhaga Mpina from the presidential race stands as a poignant reminder of how political ambition can be undone by procedural intricacies and legal technicalities.

For ACT-Wazalendo, his disqualification marks a missed opportunity to expand its political reach and project itself as a formidable contender in national politics.

Whether his exclusion will reshape the opposition’s future strategy or deepen internal divisions remains to be seen. But for now, Mr Mpina will be remembered as the presidential candidate who never was—a figure whose journey captured the tension between law, politics, and ambition in Tanzania’s evolving democracy.