Dar es Salaam, Tanzania — 2025-12-15 Tanzania’s Luhaga Mpina Calls for Reckoning Over Disputed Election.
In a powerful address on December 6, 2025, Luhaga Joelson Mpina, leader of the opposition ACT Wazalendo party, called for a reckoning over Tanzania’s disputed election, highlighting issues of exclusion, institutional hesitation, and public anger. His statement marked a significant moment in the ongoing political crisis following the election.
Mpina began by acknowledging the human cost of the election, emphasizing the impact on families affected by post — election violence.
He rejected the official results, arguing they did not reflect the will of the people. He cited his own exclusion from the presidential race and the judicial system’s failure to address his appeal in a timely manner. “.
The failure to act undermined confidence in the independence of justice, “Mpina stated, focusing on institutional failure rather than individual judges. He argued that the delay in addressing his appeal denied voters a full range of choice and undermined the credibility of the election process.
The national electoral commission defended the process, emphasizing that the election followed the law and reflected public participation.
Officials highlighted high turnout figures and victories as evidence of public endorsement.
However, they faced criticism over isolated irregularities and the overall environment surrounding the vote.
As Mpina moved from courtrooms to the streets, his tone sharpened.
He challenged the justification of force against protesters, arguing that treating demonstrators as enemies of the state had no legal foundation. International observers echoed these concerns, noting restrictions on media, delays in releasing electoral information, and the shutdown of internet services during crucial moments.
European diplomats expressed concern over reports of violence, deaths, and restrictions on civic space, calling for restraint, transparent investigations, and accountability for abuses.
The government rejected claims of international interference, framing external criticism as misunderstanding or hostility. Mpina pushed back on this point, arguing that criticism focused on rights and transparency, not regime change. He described empty polling stations in urban centres and contrasted this with official claims of overwhelming participation, challenging the plausibility of the official narrative.
Opposition parties and civil society organizations echoed Mpina’s critique, calling for fresh elections, transitional arrangements, and international oversight. They urged independent investigations into post-election violence and alleged rights violations, highlighting the profound loss of faith in institutions meant to arbitrate political competition. Despite the force of his statement, Mpina’s claims remain contested, and public opinion in Tanzania is not monolithic.
However, his address captured the texture of distrust that had quietly eroded before the election.
The convergence of narratives from the opposition, electoral authorities, observers, and citizens reveals a political system under strain. Mpina’s statement is now part of the public record, forcing a reckoning that will be quoted, challenged, and revisited as Tanzania navigates the aftermath of a disputed election.
It underscores the importance of trust in the electoral process and the institutions that uphold it.
Further details are expected as the situation continues to develop.
