ACT-Wazalendo is preparing to challenge in court a provision that makes decisions in Zanzibar election petitions final, arguing that the rule unlawfully restricts the constitutional right to appeal.
The party plans to file a constitutional petition at the High Court of the United Republic of Tanzania challenging Regulation 21(4) of the Zanzibar Election Petitions Rules, 2025.
The regulation provides that a decision by a panel of three judges in an election petition is final and cannot be appealed to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania.
ACT-Wazalendo says the provision conflicts with constitutional provisions governing the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal and denies parties in election disputes an avenue to challenge decisions they consider legally or procedurally flawed.
Speaking to journalists, the party’s Attorney General, Omar Said Shaaban, said preparations for the case had been completed and the petition would be filed once the necessary documents had been signed.
“We want the right of appeal in election petitions to remain open,” Mr Shaaban said.
He said the party was challenging the regulation because, in its view, the authority granted to the Chief Justice to establish procedures for election petitions did not extend to removing a jurisdiction that is recognised by the Constitution.
The dispute centres on a change introduced under the 2025 rules.
ACT-Wazalendo said the rules applied during the 2020 election provided for appeals against High Court decisions in election petitions. Under Regulation 33 of the Zanzibar Election Petitions Rules, 2018, decisions in such cases could be challenged before the Court of Appeal.
The party argues that the 2025 rules have altered that position by making decisions of the three-judge panel final.
Mr Shaaban cited Article 117(3) and (4) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, arguing that the provisions recognise the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction over appeals arising from decisions of the High Court of Zanzibar and the High Court of the United Republic.
He also referred to Article 99 of the Zanzibar Constitution, which, according to ACT-Wazalendo, sets out specific limitations on the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction over decisions of the High Court of Zanzibar.
The party argues that those limitations cover specific constitutional and Kadhi’s Court matters and do not include election petitions.
On that basis, ACT-Wazalendo maintains that Regulation 21(4) cannot be used to prevent an appeal in an election case where the Constitution provides for the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction.
The party is also challenging what it considers the scope of the Chief Justice’s rule-making powers.
Mr Shaaban said the Elections Act gives the Chief Justice authority to prescribe procedures governing the filing and hearing of election petitions, but that such powers should not be interpreted as allowing the removal of a constitutional right or jurisdiction.
ACT-Wazalendo has opted to pursue the matter before the High Court of the United Republic rather than the High Court of Zanzibar because its challenge is based on alleged inconsistency between the regulation and the Constitution of the United Republic.
The party says it wants the court to make a definitive determination on the legality and constitutionality of Regulation 21(4), rather than simply settle a dispute over its interpretation.
“Without the right of appeal, election petitions become a forum for validating results rather than a forum for testing them,” Mr Shaaban said.
The party argues that the matter has implications beyond its own interests, saying the outcome could affect candidates and political parties involved in future election disputes.
ACT-Wazalendo has also cited what it describes as challenges in the handling of election petitions in Zanzibar as part of its argument for retaining an appeal mechanism.
The proposed constitutional case could therefore place under judicial scrutiny the relationship between Zanzibar’s election petition rules, the relevant electoral laws and constitutional provisions governing the jurisdiction of Tanzania’s Court of Appeal.
For now, the case awaits formal filing, after which the court will have an opportunity to consider ACT-Wazalendo’s constitutional arguments and any response from the relevant authorities.