Hukumu ya kesi ya Tundu Lissu tarehe 27.04.2012

patriq · Apr 17, 2012

Tunajua wanayoyaandaa ni yale yale ya arusha iweje kesi iishe leo hukumu next week. kwa mashahidi wa upande wa walalamikaji niliowaona, hakika Lisu atashinda

mzee wa njaa · Apr 17, 2012

Nataka niwe mkweli humu nia ya CCM ilikuwa ni kuwatoa G. Lema na Lissu. Sasa nawaomba wana Chadema kote Tanzania muelewe na mtegemee maamuzi ya kitata sana kwenye hukumu ya Lissu kwa habari za Ndani Lissu ananyang'anywa jimbo kwasababu Magamba walishaamua kumtoa Bungeni kwa jinsi anavyosumbua na kuwasumbua.

Silaha ya magamba ni Mahakama tu ndiyo wanayoringia ndio maana nawaambia subirini hukumu yenye UTATA MKUBWA HAPA TANZANIA.
Walianza na Lema wanataka kumalizia na LissuWatanzania siku zote ni watu wa kulalamika na hilo magamba wanalifahamu sana ndio maana wanaweza fanya chochote na wasifanywe kitu. Jaji anatoa hukumu yenye kutatanisha na anafahamu ya kwamba hata kama atakosea kutoa hukumu, ulinzi wa eye na familia yake upo kwani magamba ndio wameshikilia mipini na wapinzani wameshika makali ndio maana wanafanya lolote watakalo.
Natoa angalizo muelewe magamba hawana nia njema na CDM kinachotakiwa kuwa makini na kila kitu.
Jaji akivurunda anajua serkali ya Magamba itamlinda na Chadema watalalamika mitaani bila ya action yoyote kwani wanajua hata wakitumia nguvu ya UMMA hatuna kitakachowasumbua. Inachotwakiwa kwa CDM kuja na strategies mpya tofauti na nguvu ya Umma.
Sijui tunakwenda wapi nchi hii katika hali uonevu? Tutafika? Ngoja tuone hiyo Ijumaa ya tarehe 27.04.2012.

TUTEGEMEE HUKUMU YA UTATA MKUBWA KATIKA HISTORIA ZA HUKUMU KATIKA MAHAKAMA ZA TANZANIA.Nataka niwe mkweli humu nia ya CCM ilikuwa ni kuwatoa G. Lema na Lissu. Sasa nawaomba wana Chadema kote Tanzania muelewe na mtegemee maamuzi ya kitata sana kwenye hukumu ya Lissu kwa habari za Ndani Lissu ananyang'anywa jimbo kwasababu Magamba walishaamua kumtoa Bungeni kwa jinsi anavyosumbua na kuwasumbua.

Silaha ya magamba ni Mahakama tu ndiyo wanayoringia ndio maana nawaambia subirini hukumu yenye UTATA MKUBWA HAPA TANZANIA.
Walianza na Lema wanataka kumalizia na LissuWatanzania siku zote ni watu wa kulalamika na hilo magamba wanalifahamu sana ndio maana wanaweza fanya chochote na wasifanywe kitu. Jaji anatoa hukumu yenye kutatanisha na anafahamu ya kwamba hata kama atakosea kutoa hukumu, ulinzi wa eye na familia yake upo kwani magamba ndio wameshikilia mipini na wapinzani wameshika makali ndio maana wanafanya lolote watakalo.
Natoa angalizo muelewe magamba hawana nia njema na CDM kinachotakiwa kuwa makini na kila kitu.
Jaji akivurunda anajua serkali ya Magamba itamlinda na Chadema watalalamika mitaani bila ya action yoyote kwani wanajua hata wakitumia nguvu ya UMMA hatuna kitakachowasumbua. Inachotwakiwa kwa CDM kuja na strategies mpya tofauti na nguvu ya Umma.
Sijui tunakwenda wapi nchi hii katika hali uonevu? Tutafika? Ngoja tuone hiyo Ijumaa ya tarehe 27.04.2012.

TUTEGEMEE HUKUMU YA UTATA MKUBWA KATIKA HISTORIA ZA HUKUMU KATIKA MAHAKAMA ZA TANZANIA.

Sema Chilo · Apr 17, 2012

mwenye FULL kesi atuwekee sisi ambao hatukufuatilia yote pls tafadhali kwani hizi stress zinatuumiza

Mafie PM · Apr 17, 2012

Wakicheza tu tunaamiua kuitikia wito wa kuipindua Nchi sasa.. juzi tuliombwa tukaacha sasa tutajua haki huwa inapatikania wapi. na wa kwanza kuwahukumu ni hao hao wakuu

Capitalist · Apr 17, 2012

Mungi said:
Aliyekutuma mwambie jamaa wameshtukia dili!
Ni upumbavu kusema mashahidi wa Tundu Lissu walijichanganya, wakati kesi tuliifuatilia mwanzo mpaka mwisho.
Wapi*Isango*leo?

Isango anaumwa mkuu.

joystaff77 · Apr 17, 2012

Kwani mbona faster faster kuliko ukonga au ndo style ya "maliza wote tuone watafanya nini" lakini sisi tuna mungu

BADILI TABIA · Apr 17, 2012

sijui na yeye 'watam-godbless lema'

Isango · Apr 18, 2012

Wana JF, poleni kwa kukosa matukio ya mwisho wa wiki kuhusu kesi ya Lissu, sababu zilikuwa nje ya uwezo wangu, tupo pamoja. Nimewaletea submission yake ni hii.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

DODOMA DISTRICT REGISTRY

AT DODOMA

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CAUSE NO. 1 OF 2010

1. SHABANI ITAMBU SELEMA 1[SUP]st[/SUP] PETITIONER

2. PASCAL MARCEL HALLU ... 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. HON. TUNDU ANTIPHAS MUGHWAI LISSU 1[SUP]st[/SUP] RESPONDENT

2. THE RETURNING OFFICER, SINGIDA MASHARIKI CONSTITUENCY ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] RESPONDENT

3. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ... ... ... ... 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] RESPONDENT

1[SUP]st[/SUP] RESPONDENTS SUBMISSION ON A PLEA OF NO CASE TO ANSWER BY THE RESPONDENTS

(Pursuant to the Order of the Honorable Court [Hon. Mr. Justice Mzuna] dated 10[SUP]th[/SUP] April, 2012)

1. FACTS OF THE PETITION

My Lord,

This is a petition for the avoidance of the parliamentary election in which the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent was declared the lawfully elected Member of Parliament for the Singida Mashariki Constituency. The election was part of the General Elections that were held on 31[SUP]st[/SUP] October, 2010. According to the results recorded in the prescribed Form 24B which was annexed to the Petitioners List of Further Documents but never tendered as evidence in Court, the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent who was fielded by the Chama cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo (hereafter CHADEMA) - polled 13,787 votes to defeat the Chama cha Mapinduzi (hereafter CCM) candidate, one Jonathan Andrew Njau, who scooped some 12,161 votes. One other candidate named Abdallah Mohamed Mukhandi, who represented the Civic United Front (hereafter CUF), received a total of 139 votes. Some 1,005 votes were declared spoilt. The Petition was filed on 29[SUP]th[/SUP] November, 2010. Following a successful challenge to the propriety of various paragraphs of the Petition, in a ruling dated 14[SUP]th[/SUP] March, 2012, the Honorable Court struck out paragraphs 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 18 of the Petition. That left paragraphs 9, 10, 14, 15, 16 and 17 as the only substantive parts of the Petition and the Honorable Court ordered amendment of the pleadings to reflect the ruling. The order was duly complied with by the parties. The crux of the Petitioners case is contained in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Amended Petition of 15[SUP]th[/SUP] March, 2012. It is alleged in paragraph 7 that the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent prepared letters containing lists of polling agents purportedly from all political parties which participated in the General Elections of 31[SUP]st[/SUP] October 2010 except CCM. As a result of this act, it is alleged, the total number of polling agents sent by the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent in the whole Constituency was 1240. In paragraph 8 of the Amended Petition, the Petitioners allege that of the 124 polling stations in the whole of Singida Mashariki Constituency the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent had 620 polling agents inside all polling stations and an equal of alternate polling agents outside the polling stations. Compared to this average of five polling agents inside and outside each polling station, the Petitioners candidate had 124 polling agents in all polling stations, an average of one polling agent per polling station. In paragraph 9 of the Amended Petition, the Petitioners contend that the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent bribed and, presumably unduly, influenced the polling agents of other parties participating in the election except for the CCM polling agents. The bribery alleged was in the form of the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent paying for food and transportation of the polling agents in all 124 polling stations on the election day. It is specifically alleged that in some places, food was distributed to polling agents by a motorcycle with registration number T 99 BJP, the property of one Clet Kidamwina, while in other places food was distributed by cars of unknown description. Significantly, there is no allegation that the said Clet Kidamwina acted as agent for the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent or with his knowledge and consent or approval. Similarly, there is no allegation that the other cars belonged to the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent or distributed food with his knowledge and consent or approval. Paragraph 10 of the Amended Petition alleges that in Ofisi ya Kijiji Ikungi Polling Station No. 2, the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondents polling agent, one Hussein Mwangia took the stations voters register from the stations presiding officer and carried out voter verification himself rather than the presiding officer. It is alleged that the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondents agent aforesaid was thus in a position to determine who could or could not vote. In paragraph 11 of the Amended Petition, it is alleged that in some polling stations police officers posted to keep the peace and order during the election at times abandoned their duties and campaigned for the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent. In Shule ya Msingi Kinku Polling Station specifically, one police detective with registration number D. 9979, later identified as Detective Corporal Paul, had to be removed from the Polling Station by the Officer Commanding District, Singida after voters at the Polling Station complained about his illegal campaign. In paragraph 12 of the Amended Petition, it is contended that the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent conveyed voters to and from polling stations on the election day by using a motor vehicle of unknown description but with registration number T 503 ARS which was driven by one Phillipo John. It is specifically alleged that the said Phillipo John ferried voters to and from Taru Village to Mangonyi Polling Station. Remarkably, there is no allegation that the driver aforesaid acted for the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent or with his knowledge and consent or approval. As far as paragraph 13 of the Amended Petition is concerned, the Petitioners allege that in Polling Station No. 014447, the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Respondent deliberately manipulated election results thereof by posting results at the Polling Station which were different from the results that were eventually sent to the Director of Elections. Specifically, it is alleged, whereas the results posted at the Polling Station had the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent winning by 535 votes to the Petitioners candidates 515 and the CUF candidates 4, the results that were sent to the Director of Elections had the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent as the winner by 536 votes to the Petitioners candidates 509 and the CUF candidates 8. It is the Petitioners contention that the alleged irregularities made the whole election process neither free nor fair and significantly swayed the results in favour of the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent to the detriment of the Petitioners candidate who, it is claimed, declined to sign the election results as declared by the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Respondent. It is on this basis that the Petitioners have demanded the avoidance of the Singida Mashariki Constituency parliamentary election results and consequential orders and reliefs. Naturally, for their part, the Respondents vehemently contested the Amended Petition in all its material particulars.

FRAMED ISSUES

My Lord, It was on the basis of these pleadings that your Lordship framed the following issues for the determination of the Amended Petition: 1. Whether the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent prepared letters purportedly issued by different political parties except CCM which purported to submit names of the parties polling agents to the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Respondent; 2. Whether, as a result of the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondents actions aforesaid, the total number of polling agents sent by the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent in the whole of the Singida Mashariki Constituency was 1240;
3. Whether the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent had 620 polling agents inside all polling stations and an equal number of polling agents outside the polling stations;
4. Whether the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent bribed and influenced polling agents of political parties other than CCM by paying for their food and transportation in all polling stations. If the answer to the issue above is in the affirmative, whether it was done with the knowledge and consent or approval of the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent;
5. Whether the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondents polling agent agent for the Ofisi ya Kijiji Ikungi Polling Station No. 2, one Hussein Mwangia, took the voters register and conducted voter verification himself rather than the Responsible Returning Officer and therefore usurping his or her powers;
6. Whether policemen in some polling stations abandoned their duties and went on to campaign for the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent as a result of which a police detective with registration number D. 9979 was removed from Kinku Polling Station by the OCD Singida after complaints were made against him by voters;
7. Whether the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent provided transportation to some voters by using a motor vehicle with registration number T 503 ARS driven by one Phillipo John who ferried voters to and from Taru Village to Mangonyi Polling Station;
8. Whether the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Respondent manipulated the results of Polling Station No. 014447 by posting results at the Polling Station aforesaid which were different from the results which were eventually sent to the Director of Elections;
9. Whether the Petitioners candidate declined to sign the results of the Singida Mashariki Constituency parliamentary election on account that the election aforesaid was neither free and/or fair to the prejudice of the Petitioners candidate;
10. Whether the actions of the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] and 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Respondents aforesaid adversely affected the results of the Singida Mashariki Constituency parliamentary election, thereby rendering the said election neither free and/or fair;
11. To what reliefs are the parties entitled to.

PERTINENT LEGAL PRINCIPLES

My Lord, There are fundamental legal principles which we respectfully urge your Lordship to be guided by in the determination of this Amended Petition in accordance with the framed issues. These principles are as set forth below, to wit: 1. That unlike other civil proceedings, election petitions are special proceedings in that the parties thereof are strictly bound to their pleadings and the issues framed. That is to say, parties to an election petition are not permitted to travel beyond their pleadings by canvassing matters they have not pleaded. [Phillip Anania Masasi vrs. The Returning Officer Njombe North Constituency & 2 Others, HC Misc. Civil Cause No. 7 of 1995, HC Songea (unreported); Gwagilo vrs. The Attorney General [2002] 2 EA 381 (CAT); Juma vrs. Manager PBZ Ltd. & Others [2004] 1 EA 62, 67 (CAT); Gitahi & Another vrs. Maboko Distributors Ltd. & Another [2005] 1 EA 65, 68-9 (CAK)]; 2. Like in all civil and criminal proceedings, he who alleges in an election petition must prove his allegations. That is to say, the burden of proving the allegations of irregularities in an election petition lies on the party making the allegations, in this case the Petitioners. Under section 112 of the Evidence Act, Chapter 6 of the Revised Edition of the Laws of Tanzania (hereafter the Evidence Act), the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any other person;
3. That being special proceedings, the standard of proof required for a party to succeed in overturning the results of an election is much higher than in ordinary civil proceedings. According to section 108(2) of the National Elections Act, Chapter 343 of the Revised Edition of the Laws of Tanzania, 2010 (hereafter the Elections Act), a parliamentary election shall be declared void only if irregularities affecting the results of the election are proved to the satisfaction of the Court. That is to say, the party who alleges irregularities in an election must prove the existence of the alleged irregularities beyond any reasonable doubt. [Chabanga Hassan Dyamwale vrs. Alhaj Musa Sefu Masomo & Another [1982] TLR 69 (HC); Lutter Nelson vrs. Attorney General & Another [1999] 2 EA 160 (CAT); and Manju Salum Msambya vrs. Attorney General & Another, Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2002 (CAT)(unreported).] 4. That not every irregularity or non-compliance with the Elections Act warrants the courts interference with the verdict of the electorate by nullifying the results of a parliamentary election. For the court to so interfere, the party alleging the irregularity or non-compliance must prove beyond reasonable doubt that such irregularity or non-compliance affected the results of the election. [Martha Michael Wejja vrs. Attorney General & 3 Others [1982] TLR 35 (CAT); Chabanga Hassan Dyamwale vrs. Alhaj Musa Sefu Masomo & Another [1982] TLR 69 (HC); Stanslaus Rugaba Kasusura & Another vrs. Phares Kabuye [1982] TLR 338 (CAT)];
5. That where, in the course of hearing of a petition arising from a contested multiparty election, it emerges that there are votes that cannot be accounted for, then rather than nullifying the results of the election due to this irregularity the unaccounted for votes must be apportioned pro rata to all candidates who contested the election. [Sylvester Masinde vrs. Pius C. Msekwa & Another, CAT Civil Appeal No. 57 of 1997, CAT DSM (unreported)];
6. That while it is not right to dismiss outright the evidence of partisan witnesses, that evidence must be viewed with great care and caution, scrutiny and circumspection.[Lutter Nelson vrs. Attorney General & Another [1999] 2 EA 160, 163 (CAT)];
7. That evidence has to be weighed and not counted. That is to say it is not the number of witnesses the party calls in support of its case that matters but their credibility. Under section 143 of the Evidence Act, no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. [Rajabu Yusufu vrs. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 457 of 2005 (CAT)(unreported). With these principles in mind, let us turn our attention to the issues framed and the evidence canvassed by the two witnesses who testified on behalf of the Petitioners.

1. WHETHER THE 1[SUP]ST[/SUP] RESPONDENT PREPARED LETTERS PURPORTEDLY ISSUED BY DIFFERENT POLITICAL PARTIES EXCEPT CCM WHICH PURPORTED TO SUBMIT NAMES OF THE PARTIES POLLING AGENTS TO THE 2[SUP]ND[/SUP] RESPONDENT

My Lord, This issue arose out of paragraph 7 of the Petitioners Amended Petition and paragraphs 3 and 4 of the respective Amended Replies to the Petition of the Respondents. It is alleged in paragraph 7 of the Amended Petition that the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent prepared letters containing lists of polling agents purportedly from all political parties which participated in the General Elections of 31[SUP]st[/SUP] October 2010 except for CCM. As a result of this act, it is alleged, the total number of polling agents sent by the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent in the whole of Singida Mashariki Constituency was 1240. To prove these allegations the Petitioners tendered documentary evidence in the form of letters containing lists of polling agents from five political parties which they claimed were prepared by the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent. The Petitioners also adduced direct oral testimony in support of this ground through the Petitioners themselves who testified as PW1 and PW2 respectively, Cosmas Kasangani (PW10), John Madindilo (PW19), Hussein Musuna Mwangia (PW22) and Steven Jutta who testified as PW23. For their part, the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] and 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Respondents testified in their own behalf and also called three witnesses to corroborate them. The latter witnesses were Shabani Hamisi Lyimu (RW3) and Selemani Mohamed Ntandu (RW4). The 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent contends that the Petitioners have utterly failed to prove any of the allegations set out in paragraph 7 of the Amended Petition. Firstly, the documentary evidence produced in Court by the Petitioners does not support the allegations. Though the Petitioners tendered Exhibit P4 - introductory letters and the accompanying lists of polling agents from five different political parties, excepting CCM, which they contended were prepared by the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent - there is no proof whatsoever that such letters were actually written by the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent. On the contrary, the letters show that they were written by the District Secretaries of their respective political parties. Thus, for example, the letter introducing CHADEMA polling agents was written by that partys Singida District Secretary, one Shabani H. Lyimu, while that of CUF was written by that partys Singida District Secretary one Selemani M. Ntandu. Similarly, TLPs letter of introduction was prepared by that partys Singida District Chairman Athuman Nkii, while APPT Maendeleos letter was authored by its Singida District Acting Secretary Ntandu J. Sakilu and the NCCR Mageuzi letter was written by its Singida District Secretary one Hamisi Juma. Rather than proving the Petitioners claim, this documentary evidence proves that the impugned letters were actually prepared not by the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent as alleged in the Amended Petition but by the Singida District party leaders of the five political parties that participated in the General Elections of 2010.Secondly, even in their direct oral evidence, the Petitioners have failed to produce the evidence required to prove their allegations on this ground. For example, in his examination-in-chief on this ground, PW1 who is also the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Petitioner did not mention the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent as the author of the impugned letters. However, when cross-examined by the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent as to whether the political parties that submitted Exhibit P4 were in compliance with the requirements of regulation 48(2) of the National Elections (Presidential and Parliamentary Elections) Regulations, 2010, Government Notice No. 279 of 13[SUP]th[/SUP] August, 2010 (hereafter the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections Regulations), PW1 conceded that all the parties complied. (Page 40 of the Record of the Proceedings) Regulation 48(2) requires political parties involved in an election to inform the Returning Officer in writing the names and addresses of polling agents and their respective polling stations. This testimony was not controverted when PW1 was re-examined by the Petitioners Counsel. The 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Petitioner also testified as PW2. In his examination-in-chief, this witness did not adduce evidence on this ground. However, when cross-examined by the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent whether he had seen the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent preparing the letters, PW2 was emphatic: I would say I never saw the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] respondent preparing the said letters with names of agents of each political party. I never saw him handing the said letters to the Returning Officer. They were 5 letters which I saw. None mentions the name Tundu Lissu let alone to have been signed by him. After all I do not know his signature. (Page 62 of the Record) This testimony was similarly not challenged at all during PW2s re-examination by the Petitioners Counsel. It was Cosmas Kasangani, who told the Honorable Court that he was Singida District CCM Secretary during the 2010 General Elections and testified as PW10, who audaciously told the Honorable Court that the impugned letters were written by the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent during his examination-in-chief. The witness stated boldly: The irregularities which I noted were that the CHADEMA Party and its candidate prepared a letter introducing agents from other political parties of TLP, NCCR Mageuzi, APPT Maendeleo and CUF. (Page 126 of the Record) Explaining that the letters in question were substantially identical in many respects, PW10 stated categorically that the letters were prepared by CHADEMA party and the writer is Tundu Lissu. (Page 133 of the Record) PW10 was vigorously cross-examined on this point by the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent. Under intense cross-examination, the witness conceded that he did not have any direct knowledge of the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondents preparing the impugned letters. He stated: That is (Exh.P.4) has no where written Tundu Lissu i.e. the CUF letter. He never signed it i.e. Tundu Lissu. It is not handwritten but is signed by Seleman Ally Ntandu as CUF Secretary. [APPT Maendeleo letter] is signed by Ntandu J. Sakilu as the Acting Secretary. Similarly for [the letter of] TLP Singida Rural it has the signature of Athuman Nkii as Chairman of the District. It has no signature of Tundu Lissu. The NCCR Mageuzi Singida Rural letter is signed by Hamisi Juma, Acting Secretary. Mr. Lissu has not signed it. Lastly for CHADEMA, the letter has a signature of Shaban H. Lyimu. The name of Tundu Lissu or his signature does not appear there in. By its face value you cannot judge the said letters that they were written by Tundu Lissu. Those who signed are the makers as their names appear thereon. I never saw the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] respondent writing these letters. I never saw anybody writing them. I have no knowledge of computer usage. The font, the style like times new roman, and the like. I do not know the address of the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] respondent but I know the address of CHADEMA as 261. (Pages 141-142 of the Record) When re-examined by the Petitioners Counsel, PW10 confirmed that the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent was not the author of the impugned letters. He stated: The letters from the parties did not bear the signature or name of the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent. (Page 147 of the Record) Under further re-examination, the witness also sought to link the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent to Exhibit P4 merely because the letters were identical and because of the postal address used which, he claimed, belonged to CHADEMA: We said he prepared the introductory letters [but] I do not know the one who typed the said letters. I did so by comparison though I am not computer literate. The [postal] box number 261 I know belongs to CHADEMA. (Pages 147-148 of the Record) My Lord, The issue of who was the author of Exhibit P4 was laid to rest by John Madindilo (PW19) and Hussein Musuna Mwangia (PW22). Both witnesses were called to testify for the Petitioners even though they were the Singida Regional Chairman for TLP and former Singida Mashariki Constituency Secretary for CHADEMA respectively. In his examination-in-chief, PW19 told the Honorable Court that he was a TLP candidate for the Manyoni Mjini Ward councilors seat during the 2010 General Elections. As such, he handed over the functions of the TLP Regional Chairman to his Singida District Chairman, one Athumani Nkii. When shown the TLP letter and list forming part of Exhibit P4, this witness told the Honorable Court that the letter of 24/10/2010 was written by the [Singida] District Party Chairman, the way I can see it. It has the party seal and his signature. (Page 189 of the Record) Even though he faulted the letter in several technical areas, PW19 was firm that This letter came from our party because it has our party seal and the signature of our leader. (Page 189 of the Record) The witness also told the Honorable Court that although he personally did not take part in appointing TLPs polling agents for the Singida Mashariki Constituency, the information I have is that the District Chairman did select them. (Page 189 of the Record). PW19 was extensively cross-examined by the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent on this ground and on other matters which we will have occasion to revisit in greater detail. He maintained his testimony that his party had appointed polling agents for the Singida Mashariki Constituency and that there was no truth in allegation that the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent had prepared the TLP letter forming part of Exhibit P4. The letter from TLP was written by the TLP District Party leader. It bears the seal of the party at district level (Singida). It has the name of Athumani Nkii written by handwriting. It has his signature as well. (Page 192 of the Record)None of PW19s testimony on this ground was challenged during his re-examination by the Petitioners Counsel. Perhaps the most dramatic testimony of all of the Petitioners witnesses came from PW22 Hussein Musuna Mwangia. This witness had during the 2010 General Elections served not only as the Singida Mashariki Constituency Secretary for CHADEMA, he had also served as part of the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondents campaign team and his polling agent. And even though he was specifically alleged in the Amended Petition to have committed some misconduct at the polling station he is alleged to have been posted to, this witness somehow found himself on the witness stand testifying for the Petitioners. However, when shown Exhibit P4, PW22 dramatically stated that the letters had been written by the District Secretaries of the respective political parties. When asked whether the letters bore striking similarities, the witness refused to oblige the Petitioners Counsel: The letters from CHADEMA, CUF, TLP, APPT Maendeleo look different as they come from different political parties. I cannot distinguish if they have any similarities. (Page 231 of the Record) The Petitioners Counsel unsuccessfully attempted to turn PW22 hostile. At this point, the Honorable Court examined the witness who then testified: I swear before this Court and to my religion (Islam). I never met this Advocate. I knew I summoned by the Court specifically [for] Mr. Tundu Lissu. (Page 232 of the Record) The final witness to take the witness stand on this ground was Steven S. Jutta who testified as PW23. This witness merely stated, during his examination-in-chief, that the letters and lists forming part of Exhibit P4 similar in many ways. However, when asked, during cross-examination by the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent, whether he could identify the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent as the author of the letters, PW23 stated: By mere looking you cannot establish the person who prepared them. Even by technological devices that is not possible. In these letters I cannot see the name of Tundu Lissu. You cannot say they were prepared by Tundu Lissu as he has mentioned that name. (Page 237 of the Record) My Lord, Given that the Petitioners and their witnesses had already answered the first issue in the negative, there was really no need for the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent to adduce any evidence on this point. In the legal jargon beloved of lawyers, the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent had no case to answer on this particular ground. However, the Respondents were ordered to produce evidence even on this point, so they had no choice in the matter but to grapple with an issue which had already been resolved in favor of the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent by the Petitioners themselves. Thus the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent (RW1), Shabani Hamisi Lyimu (RW3) and Selemani Mohamed Ntandu (RW4) took the witness stand. All of their evidence on this point corroborated the testimony of PW19 and PW22 that Exhibit P4 had indeed been prepared by the persons who signed the letters accompanying the lists of polling agents. This testimony was never in any way shaken in cross-examination by the Petitioners Counsel. In view of this overwhelming evidence, the first framed issue must be answered in the negative, that is to say, the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent did not prepare the letters purportedly issued by different political parties except CCM which purported to submit names of the parties polling agents to the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Respondent.

2. WHETHER, AS A RESULT OF THE 1[SUP]ST[/SUP] RESPONDENTS ACTIONS AFORESAID, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF POLLING AGENTS SENT BY THE 1[SUP]ST[/SUP] RESPONDENT IN THE WHOLE OF THE SINGIDA MASHARIKI CONSTITUENCY WAS 1240;

AND

3. WHETHER THE 1[SUP]ST[/SUP] RESPONDENT HAD 620 POLLING AGENTS INSIDE ALL POLLING STATIONS AND AN EQUAL NUMBER OF POLLING AGENTS OUTSIDE THE POLLING STATIONS;

My Lord, These two framed issues were pleaded in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Amended Petition and paragraphs 3 and 5 of the respective Amended Replies to the Amended Petition of the Respondents. As regards these two framed issues, the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent contends that since the first framed issue has been answered in the negative, it should follow logically that the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent did not have 1240 polling agents in the whole of the Singida Mashariki Constituency. Similarly, the allegation that the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent had 620 polling agents inside all polling stations and a similar number outside the polling stations can nor longer hold, given the negative finding on the first issue. This is because the number of the alleged polling agents both inside and outside the polling stations in the Singida Mashariki Constituency - was based on the letters forming part of Exhibit P4 which, we have shown, were prepared by the various political parties that participated in the 2010 General Elections in Singida Mashariki Constituency. This finding is also supported by the evidence on the Honorable Courts record. Thus of the total number of 124 polling stations in Singida Mashariki Constituency during that Election, Petitioners witnesses only adduced evidence on this ground in only seven polling stations. (See the testimonies of PW3 Samwel Paul Njoghomi, page 68; PW4 Haji Selemani Mukhandi, page 75; PW5 Sophia Abdallah Muhoji, page 91; PW6 Matteo Cosmas Mnyambii, page 99; PW7 Joseph Gasper Sungita, page 107; PW8 Robert Itua Kimanda, page 112; PW9 Mughenyi Hassan Kimu, page 118; PW11 Mohamed Ngimba Fundi, page 150; PW14 Juma Said Daa, page 165; and PW18 Jumanne Rajabu, page 181. Even assuming, without accepting, that there were ten polling agents for CHADEMA in the polling stations referred to in the testimonies of the Petitioners witnesses named above, that would still take their number to 70 polling agents in seven polling stations. As it turns out, however, even in these polling stations the number of polling agents was far smaller than the numbers alleged in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Amended Petition! Thus, according to PW3, there were apart from him four other polling agents at the Shule ya Msingi Ikungi No. 3 Polling Station where he was the polling station for CCM. (See also the testimony of PW4 at page 75 of the Record) Similarly, at Shule ya Msingi Makiungu No. 1 Polling Station where PW5 claimed to have been a CCM polling agent, there were four polling agents apart from her. Likewise, at Shule ya Msingi Makiungu No. 3 where PW6 claimed to have been the CCM polling agent, there were four other polling agents. At the Shule ya Msingi Dungunyi No. 2 Polling Station where PW7 was the CCM polling agents, there were two other polling agents. Other polling stations also had fewer than the alleged ten polling agents each. Thus according to the testimony of PW8 who claimed to be the CCM polling agent at the Shule ya Msingi Issuna No. 2 Polling Station, there were three other polling agents. PW8 was corroborated by PW9 who told the Honorable Court he was the CHADEMA polling agent at that polling station. Similarly, at the Shule ya Msingi Issuna No. 1 where PW18 claimed to have been the CUF polling agent, there were three other polling agents excluding the CCM polling agent. Ironically, PW18 - who claims to have been polling agent at Shule ya Msingi Issuna No. 1 Polling Station was also seen serving as the CUF polling agent at the Shule ya Msingi Issuna No. 2 Polling Station by both PW8 and PW9! At the Ntuntu Ofisi ya Kata No. 3 Polling Station where PW11 claimed to have served as the APPT Maendeleo polling agent, there were four other polling agents, while PW14 saw only two CHADEMA agents at the Shule ya Msingi Makiungu No. 2 Polling Station where he voted! When the numbers of these polling agents are added up, and assuming without accepting that all of them were appointed by the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent, the latter had twenty six polling agents in seven polling stations for which there is evidence in the Court record. This is a far cry from the 620 polling agents inside all polling stations and a similar number outside the polling stations claimed in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Amended Petition. My Lord, The Petitioners have not proved to the standard required by law that even in those polling stations for evidence was adduced the polling agents therein belonged to the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent. To prove the two framed issues, the Petitioners called PW1, PW10, PW20 and PW21 to testify on the two grounds. According to PW1, the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent had 5 more [polling] agents in each polling station. That is to my own knowledge. (Page 31 of the Record) He repeated the same allegation at page 32 of the Record: The 1[SUP]st[/SUP] respondent had 5 agents inside each polling station and 5 outside. Elsewhere in his testimony, this witness told the Honorable Court that the figure of 1240 [polling] agents of the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent can be seen from his letters which has some names bearing the same address. That was the same address even for other parties agents except CCM. We have a list of the agents both for inside and outside the polling stations. (Page 33 of the Record) PW1 further testified that all agents excluding CCM, about 620 who were inside belonged to the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent. Similarly, the 620 agents who were outside the polling stations were his. (Page 39 of the Record) However, when cross-examined by the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent on this point, PW1 admitted that the polling agents belonged to their respective parties. (Page 39 of the Record) PW1 was further questioned whether the political parties that did not have parliamentary or civic candidates but had presidential candidates were entitled to appoint polling agents in the Singida Mashariki Constituency. The witness replied: TLP had no candidate for parliamentary election at Singida Mashariki but had a candidate for presidential elections. They had a right to have [polling] agents in all polling stations. The same applies for APPT Maendeleo and NCCR Mageuzi. (Pages 39-40 of the Record) PW1 added that all political parties that submitted the letters forming part of Exhibit P4 complied with regulation 48(2) of the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections Regulations. (Page 40 of the Record) PW10 was equally emphatic in his examination-in-chief that the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent had five polling agents inside every polling station and a similar number of polling agents outside each polling station. Thus, according to this witness, the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent had 1240 agents while CCM had 124 agents only. (Page 133 of the Record) Elsewhere in his testimony PW10 repeated the allegation that as a result of the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondents machinations, there were five polling agents inside and five agents outside the polling centres. (Page 135 of the Record) When PW10 was cross-examined on this point, it emerged that he based his testimony on the erroneous notion that only political parties that had put up parliamentary and civic candidates had a right to appoint polling agents. Thus, according to this witness, APPT Maendeleo, CUF and TLP had no right to appoint polling agents because they had no parliamentary or civic candidates. However, when shown the relevant provisions of the Elections Act, PW10 admitted that his belief was based on an ignorance of the law: In view of that law the said parties had a right to have agents. (Page 142 of the Record) PW10 also appeared to believe that mere presentation of a list of polling agents to the Returning Officer was sufficient evidence for the agents to be admitted into polling stations. However, when shown the provisions of the law requiring polling agents to swear an oath of secrecy before they can be admitted into the polling stations, PW10s testimony fell apart. It is true that mere presenting a letter to the Returning Officer does not entitle them to be the agents. The agent must swear an oath. The said introductory letters are not accompanied with oath certificates. We never applied to be served the said list of 1240 from the Returning Officer to prove that they were the agents. I have no evidence to show that they had five agents inside and five agents outside. (Pages 142-143 of the Record) PW10 also appeared to be laboring under the ignorance of law with regard to alternate polling agents for he stated categorically that it is not true that there is the alternate polling agent. (Page 143 of the Record) He was disabused of that false notion when he was shown the relevant provisions of the law. I admit the said letter Exhibit P4 have alternate polling agents. CCM letter has one agent without the alternate polling agent unlike other parties though the law allowed it. (Page 143 of the Record) My Lord, The provisions of the law relating to polling agents are to be found in section 57 of the Elections Act, and regulations 48 and 49 of the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections Regulations. Section 57(1) of the Act entitles each political party to appoint, with the prior consent of the candidate, a polling agent for each polling station within the constituency for which it has a candidate or candidates. Polling agents are appointed for the purpose of detecting personation; representing and safeguarding the interests of the candidate or candidates at the polling station; and cooperating with the presiding officer and polling assistants to secure the smooth compliance with the law and procedures pertaining to elections at the polling station. Section 57(2) of the Elections Act obligates political parties to give to the Returning Officer, not later than seven days before election day, a notice in writing of the appointment, stating the name and address of the polling station to which the agent has been assigned. The political party may, in the same notice, appoint alternate polling agents who may be present and perform any of the functions of a polling agent in the absence of the polling agent from the polling station, whether permanently or temporarily. Regulations 49(1) and 48(2) of the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections Regulations substantially reproduce the provisions of sections 57(1) and (2) of the Act respectively. Crucially, regulation 48(4) of the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections Regulations require every polling agent, before assuming duty (to) take an oath of secrecy in the prescribed Form No. 6 three days before polling day. Regulation 48(5) leaves no doubt as to the importance of the oath of secrecy: No polling agent shall be allowed to be at the polling station without having taken an oath of secrecy. It is indeed an election offence punishable by a fine of not less than one hundred thousand shillings and not exceeding three hundred thousand shillings or imprisonment of between six and twelve months or to both such fine and imprisonment for a polling agent to attend at a polling station or at the counting of votes without having first taken an oath of secrecy in the prescribed form. [See sections 93(1) and (7) of the Elections Act.] Given these clear and unambiguous mandates of the law, the only evidence that was required to prove that the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent had the alleged 1240 or any other number of polling agents in or outside all the polling stations across the Singida Mashariki Constituency was the production in court of copies of the oaths of secrecy in the prescribed Form No. 6 taken by the alleged polling agents. The Petitioners have failed to produce a single copy of the oath aforesaid. Which is to say, the Petitioners have completely failed to prove that the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent had any single, let alone 1240, polling agents in any of the 124 polling stations in Singinda Mashariki Constituency. Framed issues numbers 2 and 3 must, therefore, be answered in the negative.

4. WHETHER THE 1[SUP]ST[/SUP] RESPONDENT BRIBED AND INFLUENCED POLLING AGENTS OF POLITICAL PARTIES OTHER THAN CCM BY PAYING FOR THEIR FOOD AND TRANSPORTATION IN ALL POLLING STATIONS. IF THE ANSWER TO THE ISSUE ABOVE IS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, WHETHER IT WAS DONE WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT OR APPROVAL OF THE 1[SUP]ST[/SUP] RESPONDENT;

My Lord, This issue was framed out of the contents of paragraph 9 of the Amended Petition and paragraphs 4 and 6 of the respective Amended Replies to the Amended Petition of the Respondents. The Petitioners called PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7, PW8, PW9, PW11, PW12, PW12, PW13, PW14, PW15 and PW16 to testify on their behalf on this ground. For the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent, RW1, RW3, RW4 and RW5 testified in rebuttal. All witnesses who testified for the Petitioners claimed that all polling agents in their respective polling stations were supplied with bottled water, juice and biscuits. Since, according to the witnesses, these polling agents did not represent the interests of the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent or his party, supplying them with food and drinks amounted to unconscionable funding under the Election Expenses Act, 2010, Act No. 6 of 2010 (hereafter the Election Expenses Act), or treating under the Elections Act. This is a most serious allegation with far reaching consequences. Under section 22 of the Election Expenses Act, every person who corruptly, by himself or by any other person, on his behalf, either before, during or after election directly or indirectly gives, or provides, or pays, wholly or in part, the expense of giving or providing food, drink, entertainment or provisions to or for any person, for the purpose of influencing that person or any other person to vote or to refrain from voting at such election is deemed to have committed unconscionable funding. Section 94 of the Elections Act makes the latter, now called treating, an offence of corrupt practice which is punishable by a fine of not less than five hundred thousand shillings or to imprisonment for a term of between one and three years. There are further penalties for the offence of corrupt practice. Under section 114(2) of the Elections Act, at the conclusion of the trial of an election petition or appeal, the court shall certify to the Director of Elections whether any corrupt has been committed by or with the knowledge and consent or approval of any candidate at the election, and the nature of such practice, if any. And where the court certifies that the offence of corrupt practice has been committed by any person, that person shall according to section 114(4) of the Act be subject to the same disqualifications as if at the date of that certificate, he had been convicted of the offence of illegal practice. The same applies to commission of corrupt or illegal practice with the knowledge and consent or approval of the candidate under section 114(6). The consequences of the certification by the Director of Elections are very severe indeed. For, under section 114(6)(b) of the Act, the Director of Elections shall immediately delete from the register the name of any person registered in it, who appears from the record to be disqualified from voting at an election. And when that happens, the person concerned is automatically barred from holding the office of Member of Parliament. For under Article 67(2)(h) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, Chapter 2 of the Revised Edition of the Laws of Tanzania (hereafter the Constitution), mtu hatakuwa na sifa za kustahili kuchaguliwa au kuteuliwa kuwa Mbunge ikiwa kwa mujibu wa Sheria iliyotungwa na Bunge inayoshulikia makosa yanayohusika na uchaguzi wa aina yoyote mtu huyo amezuiliwa kujiandikisha kama mpiga kura au kupiga kura katika uchaguzi wa Wabunge. My Lord, The 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent contends that the Petitioners have failed completely to prove their allegations of unconscionable funding or treating by the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent. For example, PW1 claimed in his examination-in-chief that he saw the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent and another person by the name of Clet Kidamwina supplying food at the Shule ya Msingi Makiungu No. 3 Polling Station where he had cast his vote. According to this witness, Clet Kidamwina had a motorcycle which he used to supply the said food. (Page 34 of the Record) Under cross-examination by the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent, however, PW1 changed his story about the location where food was supplied. Then I saw the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent supplying some biscuits, soda and water at [Shule ya Msingi] Makiungu No. 2 [Polling Station]. I saw him at about 12.00 noon and 1.00 pm. By then the said items were already ferried to the station. This 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent went there to serve it. (Page 38 of the Record) However, PW1s testimony was contradicted by PW6 who stated that he never saw Mr. Clet Kidamwina at Makiungu Primary School Polling Station No. 3. I know him. During the elections he had a motorcycle. I never saw even his motorcycle at Makiungu No. 3. I do not know where the food which was served to the agents was brought, who brought it and how it and how it found its way to Makiungu. I never saw him, i.e. Clet. (Page 102 of the Record) PW6 claimed to have been the CCM polling agent at the Shule ya Msingi Makiungu No. 3 Polling Station. As regards what happened at the Shule ya Msingi Makiungu No. 2 Polling Station where the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent was allegedly seen by PW1 distributing water, juice and biscuits to polling agents, PW14 Juma Saidi Daa said the following under cross-examination by the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent: I know Shabani Itambu Selema (1[SUP]st[/SUP] Petitioner). I never saw Mr. Shabani Itambu Selema at the polling station on that date and hour. I never saw this 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent at the polling station when I was there. (Page 166 of the Record) The 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent pointedly asked this witness that the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Petitioner said he saw me at about 1.00 p.m. supplying juice, water and biscuits. PW14 was brief and to the point: I never saw you! (Page 166 of the Record) Another witness to claim that the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent distributed food to polling agents other than CCM agents was PW5 who claimed to have been the CCM polling agent for the Shule ya Msingi Makiungu No. 1 Polling Station. According to this witness, the MP and councilor distributed some water, juice and biscuits to all agents except me. I expected them to distribute even to me in all fairness. They distributed to CHADEMA, UDP, TLP and APPT. All two were distributing. Then they left, leaving the bottles there. That was done inside the polling station. (Page 91 of the Record) Significantly, given the evidence that Shule ya Msingi Makiungu Nos. 1, 2 and 3 Polling Stations were in three adjoining classrooms, PW5 denied seeing Clet Kidamwina at her polling station: I did not see Clet Kidamwina at my polling station. I never saw the motorcycle of Clet Kidamwina because I was inside the polling centre. (Page 94 of the Record) My Lord, The above evidence came from the Petitioners witnesses all of whom claimed to have been at or near the scene of the alleged infractions. It is so inconsistent and contradictory that it raises a very legitimate question as to whether the witnesses were at the scene of the alleged infractions and, if so, whether they witnessed the same events. In Lutter Nelson vrs. Attorney General & Another [2000] TLR 419, 423-4, the Court of Appeal of Tanzania held that whether or not discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses have the effect of discrediting that evidence would depend upon the nature of the discrepancies, that is to say, whether or not the discrepancies are trifling. Trifling discrepancies should be ignored as they are often a test of truth. Several persons giving their versions of a transaction witnessed by them are naturally liable to disagree on immaterial points. It is the broad facts of a case and not the little details that are considered in weighing of the evidence. And in Mohamed Said Matula versus R. [1995] TLR 3, the Court of Appeal of Tanzania held that where the testimonies by witnesses contain inconsistencies and contradictions, the court has a duty to address the inconsistencies and try to resolve them where possible; else the court has to decide whether the inconsistencies and contradictions are only minor, or whether they go to the root of the matter.

The Honorable Court has a similar duty in this matter. It is clear that the evidence of the Petitioners and their witnesses is too contradictory on such a vital question of the alleged bribery of polling agents to be safely relied upon by the Honorable Court. As the Court of Appeal of Tanzania held in the case of Michael Haishi vrs. R. [1992] TLR 92, where witnesses contradict themselves on vital details, that evidence becomes too unsafe to be relied on. Similarly, in this case the Petitioners witnesses have contradicted themselves on vital details of the Petitioners case. As evidence, it is, in our respectful view, worthless apart from perhaps calling into question the credibility of the witnesses concerned. This evidence should never be relied upon by the Honorable Court in overturning the results of the election as prayed for by the Petitioners.
My Lord,

Claims were made by the Petitioners and/or their witnesses that in some polling stations water, juice and biscuits were distributed by other persons and/or candidates. Thus, according to PW4, polling agents were supplied with biscuits, soda and water at the Ikungi polling centre. (Page 75 of the Record) When pressed during cross-examination by the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent to name the person who treated the polling agents, PW4 stated: It was the driver of the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent Tundu Lissu who was supplying the water. I know him by shape not name. The providing of soda, biscuits and water was at 1.00 p.m. (Pages 81, 83 and 88 of the Record)

Another witness to claim that the offence of treating was committed by other persons at polling stations was PW6. This witness did tell the Honorable Court that the distributor of water, juice and biscuits in his polling station was the CHADEMA candidate for the Mungaa Ward Councilors seat. When asked who the recipients of that food were, PW6 claimed that water, biscuits and juice were distributed to Paschal Hema, Onesmo Mohamed and Lucas Lucian. They were supplied the said drinks as the members/agents of CHADEMA. They were in the polling station at Makiungu No. 3. It was corruption because I was not supplied it just as they did to others. (Page 100 of the Record) When asked, during cross-examination by the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent, whether he saw the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent supplying the food items himself or directing the CHADEMA candidate aforesaid to supply it, the witness stated: I never saw the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent supplying the food or directing (the CHADEMA councilor) to supply the food. (Page 103 of the Record)

Elsewhere, PW7 told the Honorable Court that although he saw two polling agents being supplied with food, water and juice at the Shule ya Msingi Dungunyi No. 2 Polling Station where he had been posted as the CCM poling agent, I do not know who bought the said food, from where and was for how much. I do not know by which transport it was taken there. (Page 108-9 of the Record) At Shule ya Msingi Issuna No. 2 where PW8 claimed to have been posted as the CCM polling agent, water, juice and biscuits were allegedly supplied to other polling agents other than him by Gineton Reuben Bulali, the CHADEMA candidate for the Issuna Ward councilors seat. (Pages 113 and 116 of the Record) However, when examined by the Honorable Court whether his evidence implicated the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent, PW8 did not think so: My evidence implicates the councilor rather than the Member of Parliament 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent Mr. Lissu. (Page 117 of the Record)

PW9, the CHADEMA polling agent at Shule ya Msingi Issuna No. 2 Polling Station who found himself testifying for the Petitioners added a new twist to the alleged bribery of polling agents saga. Firstly, this witness told the Honorable Court that the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondents promise of water, juice and biscuits had been directed at his partys polling agents only. When he (1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent) said he had nothing to offer but will provide some water, soft drinks and biscuits he meant for his party agents. He did as he promised. (Page 120 of the Record) Secondly, PW9 denied that other parties agents were fed by the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent. In fact if it was wrong to supply some food then it was wrong for all parties because even other parties did supply some food to their agents. (Page 120 of the Record)

PW11 who claimed to have been an APPT Maendeleo polling agent at the Ofisi ya Kata Ntuntu No. 3 Polling Station testified that although he did not know where the famous biscuits, water and juice were brought from and by whom, he was certain that they were supplied to them by a Mr. Omari Toto, the CUF candidate for the Ntuntu Ward councilors seat. (Pages 150 and 151 of the Record)

My Lord,

In all these cases where evidence was led to the effect that other persons distributed water, juice and biscuits to polling agents of other parties other than CCM, no evidence has been adduced to link the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent with the food items or with their distributors. Even without inquiring into the veracity of the claims and the credibility of the various witnesses who made them, no evidence has been led to the effect that the food items in question were bought and/or distributed by or with the knowledge and consent or approval of the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent. No proof has, similarly, been offered nor a proposition made to the effect that the persons who allegedly distributed the food items in question acted on behalf of, and/or as agents for, the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent. Given this state of affairs, the requirements of section 22 of the Election Expenses Act relating to unconscionable funding have not been met by the Petitioners. Consequently, the fourth issue framed by the Honorable Court must be answered in the negative. That is to say, the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent did not bribe or influence polling agents of other parties other than CCM by paying for their food and transportation in all polling stations on the election day.

5. WHETHER THE 1[SUP]ST[/SUP] RESPONDENTS POLLING AGENT FOR THE OFISI YA KIJIJI IKUNGI POLLING STATION NO. 2, ONE HUSSEIN MWANGIA, TOOK THE VOTERS REGISTER AND CONDUCTED VOTER VERIFICATION HIMSELF RATHER THAN THE RESPONSIBLE RETURNING OFFICER AND THEREFORE USURPING HIS OR HER POWERS;

My Lord,

This issue was framed out of the contents of paragraph 10 of the Amended Petition and paragraph 5 of the respective Amended Replies to the Petition. To prove the issue, the Petitioners not only testified on their own behalf but also summoned PW3, PW4 and PW22, the very person alleged to have committed the misconduct the subject of this ground. The Petitioners also adduced documentary evidence in the form of Exhibit P4. For his part, the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent testified on his own behalf and also called RW4 Selemani Mohamed Ntandu to corroborate him. As this ground raises the important question of the functions of polling agents it is important that we set out the relevant law.

The legal mandate for polling agents is set out in section 57(1) of the Elections Act entitles each political party to appoint, with the prior consent of the candidate, a polling agent for each polling station within the constituency for which it has a candidate or candidates. Polling agents are appointed for the purpose of detecting personation; representing and safeguarding the interests of the candidate or candidates at the polling station; and cooperating with the presiding officer and polling assistants to secure the smooth compliance with the law and procedures pertaining to elections at the polling station.This legal mandate has been translated by the National Electoral Commission into Maelekezo kwa Vyama vya Siasa na Wagombea: Uchaguzi wa Rais, Wabunge na Madiwani (hereafter Maelekezo kwa Vyama vya Siasa na Wagombea) which were issued by the Commission during the 2010 General Elections. Paragraph 10.5 of the Maelekezo kwa Vyama vya Siasa na Wagombea sets out the following functions of polling agents:(i) Kuhakikisha kwamba anayepiga kura ndiye aliyejiandikisha kwenye Daftari la Kudumu la Wapiga Kura;(ii) Kushirikiana na Msimamizi wa Kituo cha Kupigia Kura katika kuhakikisha kwamba Upigaji Kura unafanywa kwa kuzingatia sheria;(iii) Kulinda maslahi ya Chama na Mgombea anayemwakilisha kituoni. Now the evidence led by the Petitioners and their witnesses does not support the allegations made under this ground at all. For example, whereas it is alleged in paragraph 10 that Hussein Mwangia committed the infractions at the Shule ya Msingi Ikungi No. 2 Polling Station, PW3 claimed that he was at the Shule ya Msingi Ikungi No. 3 Polling Station where he, PW3, was the CCM polling agent. (Pages 67-8 of the Record) In this regard, the witness was corroborated by PW4 who also claimed to have seen Hussein Mwangia sitting together with the Returning Officer on a table verifying who should vote and who should not vote. (Page 74 of the Record) However, when asked in cross-examination by the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent why the Amended Petition alleged that Hussein Mwangia was the CHADEMA polling agent at the Shule ya Msingi Ikungi No. 2 Polling Station, PW3 did not mince his words: Those who said so are liars. He was at [Shule ya Msingi] Ikungi polling station No. 3 and not at No. 2. (Page 69 of the Record) For his part, PW4 was cross-examined by the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent on Exhibit P4 whose item 15 in the list of the CHADEMA polling agents shows the partys polling agent for Shule ya Msingi Ikungi No. 2 Polling Station as one Bernard Godson Swai, and item 16 shows Hussein Mwangia as polling agent for Shule ya Msingi Ikungi No. 3 Polling Station. He insisted: Hussein Mwangia was at the Ikungi Polling Station No. 3. I have said so. If the Petitioners said he was at Polling Station No. 2 they know themselves. (Page 86 of the Record) When shown the oath of secrecy that Hussein Mwangia swore which indicates his polling station as Ikungi No. 4, PW4 was steadfast: If he was sworn to be at No. 4 and I saw him at a different polling station then he violated his oath. (Page 86 of the Record) Perhaps the most compelling evidence regarding this issue is that of PW22 Hussein Mwangia himself and that of RW4. As already mentioned in these submissions, PW22 was called to testify for the Petitioners notwithstanding the allegations against him in the Amended Petition. However, and completely inexplicably given the raging controversy on this point, the Petitioners Counsel did not lead him to testify on his whereabouts that election day! So the one material witness who could have answered this issue definitively was not asked the most obvious question of all: where he was that election day! We respectfully urge the Honorable Court to draw adverse inference as against the Petitioners for this failure to lead their material witness to adduce evidence on this important question. In Hemedi Saidi vrs. Mohamed Mbilu [1984] TLR 113, Sisya, J., held that: Where, for undisclosed reasons, a party fails to call a material witness on his side, the court is entitled to draw an adverse inference if the witnesses were called they would have given evidence contrary to the partys interests. We believe this principle should extend to a party that calls a material witness but, for undisclosed reasons, fails to lead him in evidence on a material question before the court. The testimony of RW4 perhaps sheds better light on this ground than the evidence led by the Petitioners witnesses. As well as being the candidate for the Ikungi Ward councilors seat sponsored by CUF, RW4 also served as his partys District Secretary for the Singida Vijijini District. In his capacity as candidate for the Ikungi civic seat, RW4 visited the polling stations at the Shule ya Msingi polling centre on the election day. In his own words: I know Hussein Musuna Mwangia because we are all Moslems. We used to pray in the mosque together. Secondly he was the CHADEMA Secretary for the constituency Katibu wa Jimbo. We worked together in politics for about 2 years and six months. On the Election Day Mr. Hussein Msuna Mwangia was at the polling centre No.4. I remember this fact because when I visited the polling centre to see my polling agents, he was together with the polling agent for CUF Mr. Abdillahi Mohamed. I remember Abdillahi Mohamed because he is a Rangi by tribe. When he came to Singida he was the Moslem teacher and I was his caretaker mlezi. I can remember other CUF polling agents. At Ikungi Primary School No. 3 there was another polling agent Mr. Ally Mungwana, at No. 2 there was Seleman Shabani @ Power, at Ikungi No.1 there was Machemba Mjengi. (Page 290 of the Record) My Lord, If the Petitioners have failed to prove the whereabouts of Hussein Musuna Mwangia that election day, they cannot logically prove the purported violations he is alleged to have committed which are the subject of this ground. But assuming, for the sake of argument, he was indeed at the polling station referred to in the Amended Petition and he did commit the acts complained of, we would still respectfully submit, he did nothing wrong in verifying the voters register for the polling station in question. For what he did is precisely what section 57(1) of the Elections Act and paragraph 10.5 of the Maelekezo kwa Vyama vya Siasa na Wagombea expressly permitted him to do as polling agent. In his attempt to wriggle out of the straightjacket imposed by the law, PW4 stated: The agent can work hand in hand with the presiding officer to ascertain kuhakikisha not to verify hakiki. The presiding officer is the only one can ascertain, the agents only have to prove hakikisha the names. These verbal gymnastics should not detain the Honorable Court, for the term verify is defined in the English Swahili Dictionary, 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] Edition, Taasisi ya Uchunguzi wa Kiswahili (TUKI), 2006, as thibitisha, hakikisha, dhihirisha! So if, assuming the allegations of paragraph 10 of the Amended Petition to be true, Hussein Mwangia verified the names of voters as alleged he did absolutely nothing wrong. Issue number 5 framed by the Honorable Court must, consequently, be answered in the negative. That is to say, Hussein Mwangia the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondents polling agent did not by verifying the voters register, if at all - usurp any of the powers of the presiding officer for the polling station in question.

6. WHETHER POLICEMEN IN SOME POLLING STATIONS ABANDONED THEIR DUTIES AND WENT ON TO CAMPAIGN FOR THE 1[SUP]ST[/SUP] RESPONDENT AS A RESULT OF WHICH A POLICE DETECTIVE NO. D. 9979 WAS REMOVED FROM KINKU POLLING STATION BY OCD SINGIDA AFTER COMPLAINTS WERE MADE AGAINST HIM BY VOTERS

My Lord, This framed issue arose of the contents of paragraph 11 of the Amended Petition and paragraphs 4 and 5 of the respective Amended Replies to the Petition of the Respondents. To prove this ground, the Petitioners call three witnesses PW2, PW10 and PW16. The Respondents did not call any witness in rebuttal. According to PW2, on the election day he received a phone call from Raymond Sengea (PW16) that there was a policeman campaigning for the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent at the Kinku Polling Center. He decided to follow up on that information by going to Kinku. Upon reaching the locus in quo I saw Mr. Raymond Sengea. I observed that the policeman complained of was not at his station. We went close to him. We heard him telling some women that they should vote for Tundu Lissu because CCM is now outdated. Imepitwa na wakati. (Page 52 of the Record) PW2 decided to notify PW10 who then informed the OCD Singida who came to the polling station between one and two oclock and transferred the offending policeman to another polling station. PW2 was extensively cross-examined on this point by the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent. In his words: There is no other complaint if in other stations policemen did campaign. At Kinku polling station there were three polling stations. I cannot know which polling station out of the three he was campaigning. I do not know the names of the said women he was campaigning. I was not shown their [voter registration] cards but I know they were voters. Each polling station has the registered voters listed. I cannot and I did not cross-check their names. I say they were voters because they within the vicinity of the polling centre. (Page 55 of the Record) PW2 was corroborated by PW10. Under cross-examination by the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent, PW10 was shown a Hati ya Utendaji Uliotukuka awarded to Detective Corporal Paul for his services during the 2010 General Elections by the Inspector General of Police Saidi Ally Mwema. He admitted that he could not know about the integrity of the policeman in question better than the IGP. The witness was also shown a letter of commendation from the Singida Regional Police Commander given to Detective Corporal Paul. He had to concede that the policeman was also congratulated by RPC Singida on 20.2/2012. The 1[SUP]st[/SUP] letter by IGP was congratulating him for the job well done during the General Elections of 2010. That of the RPC is relevant to the said policeman in his normal duties. (Page 140 of the Record) The testimony of PW2 and PW10 was discredited by PW16 Raymond Sengea who told the Honorable Court when he was voting at about 1000 hours he heard a policeman saying pigia CHADEMA, pigia CHADEMA. I saw him and I decided to notify Mr. Marcel Hallu the CCM Ward Secretary. The policeman was then removed. (Page 177 of the Record) PW16 was questioned under cross-examination by the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent whether he ever met PW2 after calling him on the phone. He denied any meeting with PW2: I proceeded with my duties after that call to Mr. Hallu. Marcel Hallu never found me at the polling centre. If he said so he is wrong. (Page 177 of the Record) In view of these discrepancies in the evidence of the Petitioners on this ground, it is submitted that the Petitioners have not proved this ground to the standard required by law. The sixth issue must, consequently, be answered in the negative. That is to say, no policemen abandoned their duties and went on to campaign for the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent. Similarly, there is no evidence to support the allegation that D. 9979 Detective Corporal Paul was removed from the Kinku Polling Station on account of the alleged campaign.

7. WHETHER THE 1[SUP]ST[/SUP] RESPONDENT PROVIDED TRANSPORTATION TO SOME VOTERS BY USING A MOTOR VEHICLE WITH REG. NO. T 503 ARS DRIVEN BY ONE PHILLIPO JOHN WHO FERRIED VOTERS TO AND FROM TARU VILLAGE TO MANGONYI POLLING STATION

My Lord, The conveyance of voters falls within the category of prohibited practices under the Election Expenses Act. Under section 23(1)(a) of that no payment or contract for payment shall, for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at any election, be made on account of the conveyance of voters to or from the polling station, whether for the hiring of vehicle, vessels or animal transport of any kind whatsoever, or for railway fares, or otherwise. Under section 23(3), a person commits an act of prohibited practice who lets, lends or employs for the purpose of conveyance of voters to and from the polling station any vehicle, vessel or animal transport of any kind which he keeps or uses for the purpose of letting out for hire, and if he lets, lends or employs such vehicle, vessel or animal transport knowing that it is intended to be used for the conveyance of voters to and from the polling station. Similarly, a person who hires, borrows or uses for the purpose of conveyance of voters to and from the polling station any vehicle, vessel or animal transport of any kind which knowingly that the owner thereof is prohibited by subsection (3) to let, lend, or employ for that purpose commits an act of prohibited practice. By virtue of section 24(7) of the Act, where a candidate, or his agent or his political party commits an act which amounts to a prohibited practice in respect of which no action was taken, the Attorney General may institute criminal proceedings. The issue of conveyance of voters arose out of paragraph 12 of the Amended Petition and paragraph 5 of the respective Amended Replies to the Petition of the Respondents. The Petitioners did not lead evidence on this ground during their examinations-in-chief nor did they call any witnesses to corroborate them. They were, however, cross-examined on the issue by the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent. Under cross-examination, PW1 conceded that there was no village called Taru in Mangonyi Ward. He stated: According to the Government Notice No. 392/2010 the Mangonyi Ward has Sambaru, Mangonyi, Mwau, Mlumbi and Tupendane [Villages]. Even for the registered within [Government Notice No. 205/]2009 it was not listed. Page 42 of the Record) PW2 was similarly cross-examined on this ground by the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent. He said under the pressure of cross-examination: I do not know Phillipo John. Even the said motor vehicle registration No. T 503 ARS is not known to me. It is hearsay. Taru Village is at Mangonyi Ward. They are Taru of Mangonyi and Taru of Ntuntu. At Mangonyi there is a Taru street kitongoji. In our petition we said it is a village. Ntuntu Ward is in Mungaa Tarafa [while] Mangonyi [Ward] is in Ikungi Tarafa. We got it wrong. There is Taru village in our petition but in actual fact there is Taru Street. There are 3 Tarus but one is a village the other two are streets. Taru village is in Ntuntu Ward. (Page 60 of the Record) Given this evidence, the seventh issue must be answered in the negative. That is to say, the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent did not provide transportation to voters by using motor vehicle with registration No. T 503 ARS or at all and Phillipo John did not ferry any voters to and from Taru Village to Mangonyi polling centre.

8. WHETHER THE SECOND RESPONDENT MANIPULATED RESULTS OF POLLING STATION NO. 14447 BY POSTING THE RESULTS IN THE POLLING STATION AFORESAID WHICH WERE DIFFERENT FROM THE RESULTS FROM THE POLLING STATION THAT WERE EVENTUALLY SENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF ELECTIONS

My Lord, This issue was framed on the basis of the contents of paragraph 13 of the Amended Petition and paragraphs 7 and 5 of the respective Amended Replies to the Petition of the Respondents. The Petitioners did not lead any evidence on this ground in their examinations-in-chief nor did they call any witnesses in support. When cross-examined on the point, however, they both conceded that with or without the alleged manipulation of the results, their candidate would not have won the parliamentary election. (See pages 42 and 61-2 of the Record) As PW2 put it, even if the total votes in that polling station were given to Mr. Njau he could not have won. (Page 62 of the Record) In other words, the alleged manipulation of the results had absolutely no adverse effect on the results and the framed issue must be answered in the negative.

9. WHETHER THE PETITIONERS CANDIDATE DECLINED TO SIGN THE RESULTS OF THE SINGIDA MASHARIKI PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION ON ACCOUNT THAT THE ELECTION AFORESAID WAS NEITHER FREE NOR FAIR TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE PETITIONERS CANDIDATE

My Lord, This issue was framed on the basis of paragraph 14 of the Amended Petition and paragraphs 8 and 6 of the respective Amended Replies to the Petition of the Respondents. The Petitioners did not testify on this point in their examinations-in-chief nor did they call any witnesses to testify on it. However, they were intensely cross-examined by the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Respondent on the point. This is what PW1 stated on this ground under cross-examination: I took part during the election as a voter. I was also an agent for the CCM candidate Mr. Jonathan Njau. I took part during the counting and announcing the results. I came here to Singida town where the counting of votes was done. I represented Mr. Jonathan Njau because he was not present. I never signed the results forms. I refused to sign as his agent not Mr. Jonathan Njau who refused as alleged in paragraph 14. I signed it but the contents of paragraph 14 have some anomalies. (Page 36 of the Record) In view of this testimony of the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Petitioner issue number nine must also be answered in the negative.

10. THE PETITIONERS WITNESSES

My Lord,

The Petitioners adduced evidence on their own behalf. They also called a total of 22 other witnesses in support of their case. The Petitioners and most of their witnesses were highly partisan. Both the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] and 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Petitioners are the Mungaa Ward CCM Chairman and Secretary respectively. PW3 is a Kitongoji Chairman for Kitongoji cha Mtakuja in Ikungi Village elected on a CCM ticket. PW4 is the Ikungi Ward Councilor also elected on a CCM sponsorship. PW5 is a Makiungu Village CCM Branch Secretary and, in her own words, a CCM cadre [and] CCM damu damu! (Page 95 of the Record) PW6 is a Makiungu Village CCM Branch Chairman. PW7 is a Katibu wa Uchumi for CCM in Dungunyi Ward, while PW8 is the CCM Publicity Secretary for Gaudu Branch in Issuna Village. PW10 served as Singida District CCM Secretary during the 2010 elections and currently serves in that capacity in Urambo District.

Whereas PW15 is the Unyaghumpi Village Chairman elected on a CCM ticket, PW16 is the CCM Publicity Secretary for the Kinku Branch. PW20 is the Makiungu Village Chairman elected on the CCM ticket. And although PW21 denied being a current CCM member, he admitted that he had been implicated in allegations of campaigning for the CCM candidate during that party nomination processes. In terms of Lutter Nelson vrs. Attorney General & Another, while it is not right to dismiss outright the evidence of partisan witnesses, that evidence must be viewed with great care and caution, scrutiny and circumspection.

Now, as Lord Parker, C.J. stated in Rex versus Golder [1960] 1WLR 1169, 1172: When a witness is shown to have made previous statements inconsistent with the evidence given by that witness at the trial, the evidence given at the trial should be regarded as unreliable.

Now, Lugakingira, J. [as he then was] stated in Mathias Timothy vrs. R. [1984] TLR 86, that where a witness gives evidence that is glaringly and fundamentally false, its effect is to utterly destroy confidence in the witness altogether, unless there is some other independent evidence to corroborate the witness.

11. TO WHAT RELIEFS ARE THE PARTIES ENTITLED TO.

My Lord, In closing our submission we wish to quote what the Court of Appeal of Tanzania had to say in Manju Salum Msambya vrs. Attorney General & Another (supra): An election is the exercise of a constitutional right and the fulfillment of an obligation by the citizenry. It is perhaps the only occasion when the people are enabled directly to participate in running the affairs of their country. The courts, therefore, have a duty to respect the peoples conscience and not to interfere in their choice except in the most compelling circumstances. Quoting the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Reddy vrs. Sultan [1976] 3SCR 462, the Court of Appeal added: In a democracy the purity and sanctity of elections, the sacrosanct and sacred nature of the electoral process, must be preserved and maintained. And the valuable verdict of the people at the polls must be given respect and candour and should not be disregarded or set at naught on vague, indefinite, frivolous or fanciful allegations or evidence which is of a shaky or prevaricating character. We respectfully urge the Honorable Court to uphold the principle enunciated by the Court of Appeal by ruling that the Petitioners have not proved their case to the satisfaction of the Court. The Petition should, consequently, be dismissed with costs. Dated at Singida this 16[SUP]th[/SUP] day of April, 2012.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

1[SUP]st[/SUP] RESPONDENT

N series · Apr 18, 2012

sitaki kuamini kwamba mimi ni mmoja wa wavivu wakusoma makala ndefu ila hii kaka, duh inahitaj mda kdgo kama sio sana, sasa nipe tu summery, au ndio hiiyo tareh ya hukum ?????
by the way i thank yuuuuu

WILSON MWIJAGE · Apr 18, 2012

Ndugu,

Ngoja tusubiri, mahakama itakavyo muthibitisha kuwa mbunge alali

Lyimo · Apr 18, 2012

Hapa sijui kama wataweza kufanya "abrakadabra" mazingaombwe yao.

Mlingwa · Apr 18, 2012

[CENTER said:
11. TO WHAT RELIEFS ARE THE PARTIES ENTITLED TO.
[/CENTER]
My Lord, In closing our submission we wish to quote what the Court of Appeal of Tanzania had to say in Manju Salum Msambya vrs. Attorney General & Another (supra): "An election is the exercise of a constitutional right and the fulfillment of an obligation by the citizenry. It is perhaps the only occasion when the people are enabled directly to participate in running the affairs of their country. The courts, therefore, have a duty to respect the people's conscience and not to interfere in their choice except in the most compelling circumstances." Quoting the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Reddy vrs. Sultan [1976] 3SCR 462, the Court of Appeal added: '"In a democracy the purity and sanctity of elections, the sacrosanct and sacred nature of the electoral process, must be preserved and maintained. And the valuable verdict of the people at the polls must be given respect and candour and should not be disregarded or set at naught on vague, indefinite, frivolous or fanciful allegations or evidence which is of a shaky or prevaricating character."' We respectfully urge the Honorable Court to uphold the principle enunciated by the Court of Appeal by ruling that the Petitioners have not proved their case to the satisfaction of the Court. The Petition should, consequently, be dismissed with costs. Dated at Singida this 16[SUP]th[/SUP] day of April, 2012.

The end justify the content and context of the summarized. May right be exercised in this case.

Ruhazwe JR · Apr 18, 2012

mkuu unajitaidi sana big up

Kakulwa P · Apr 18, 2012

SJUMAA26 said:
Asije naye akawa kama yule Mhaya wa A Town! I hate Wahaya kwa character zao. Usikute hakutumwa na Magamba ila kupenda sifa kwao ndio mara nyingi wanaona bora kuliko maslahi ya taifa!
Pamoja na hayo, Magamba wana hamu sana na umwagaji wa damu kupitia ubakaji wa demokrasia. Ila Nguvu ya Umma itazidi ufirauni wao.
Ama kweli Akili ya Magamba ni sawa na ya Makamba.

Ungetuomba radhi WAHAYA hatuna jina hilo kwenye asili yetu, lakini kama unazo kumbukumbu angalia kesi nzito ambazo zimeletea heshima nchi hii zimeamliwa na majaji Wahaya. Unamjua Marehemu Jaji Lugakingira? Hao ndio wenye majina yenye asili ya Wahaya huyu wa A Town huenda kapewa jina na Magamba. Lakini kama unawachukia Wahaya hilo ni shauri lako ni sawa na tone la maji kwenye bahari ya hindi, wewe taja kabila lako uone mapungufu yenu.
Uwe mwangalifu wa maneno au tutakuita Lusinde a.k.a kibajaj

TUMBIRI · Apr 18, 2012

CCM wahuni sana. Ile kesi ya Makongoro Mahanga walishamuhonga Jaji. Sasa kwa vile wameshajua Lissu anashinda, wanataka waitangulize hii kesi ili itakapokuja hukumu ya kumshindisha Mahanga waseme mbona Lissu alishinda hamkusema Jaji amehongwa? Tulishajua michezo yao. Yule Jaji kwenye kesi ya Mpendazoe naskia Mahanga alishamuhonga Millioni thelathini na tano (Tsh.35,000,000/=).

Hukumu ya kesi ya Tundu Lissu tarehe 27.04.2012

patriq

Senior Member

mzee wa njaa

JF-Expert Member

Sema Chilo

JF-Expert Member

Mafie PM

JF-Expert Member

Capitalist

Senior Member

joystaff77

Member

BADILI TABIA

JF-Expert Member

Isango

R I P

N series

Senior Member

WILSON MWIJAGE

JF-Expert Member

Lyimo

JF-Expert Member

Mlingwa

JF-Expert Member

Ruhazwe JR

JF-Expert Member

Kakulwa P

JF-Expert Member

TUMBIRI

JF-Expert Member

Similar Discussions