Ibara ya 30:5

[Lizy]

Lazaro, unasahau kitu kimoja, hii sii kesi ya madai au ya jinai (not a civil or criminal case) ni kesi ya Kikatiba. Tukirudi hata kwenye kesi ya madai, mahakama inaposema fulani amlipe x kwa kumchafulia jina, yule x halazimiki kuanza kulipa mara moja kama anampango wa kukata rufaa na polisi hawawezi kwenda kukamata mali yake kutekeleza hiyo hukumu. Lakini katika muda uliopo mawakili wake n.k watatoa notice kwa mahakama kuwa wana nia ya kukata rufaa na hivyo hiyo hukumu isitekelezwe pending the appeal process.

hii sii kesi ya madai au ya jinai (not a civil or criminal case) ni kesi ya Kikatiba.
Mwkjj, Hapo juu nakataa. Hii ni kesi ya MADAI, amabyo mlalamikaji (Mtikila) anadai katiba imekosewa/haiko fair na Mahakama baada ya kusikiliza MADAI yake, ikapendekeza/ikaamuru kifungu hicho cha katiba kifutwe/kibadilishwe. Serikani ikakata rufaa kukataa maamuzi ya Mahakama, kesi ipo pending for appeal.

Thanks that we now speak the same language. "Tukirudi hata kwenye kesi ya madai, mahakama inaposema fulani amlipe x kwa kumchafulia jina, yule x halazimiki kuanza kulipa mara moja kama anampango wa kukata rufaa na polisi hawawezi kwenda kukamata mali yake kutekeleza hiyo hukumu". Na ndiyo kitu imetokea kwenye kesi ya Mtikila ambayo ni Madai, Mahakama ikatoa maamuzi na Serikali ikakata rufaa, muda wa rufaa haujaisha, thats why maamuzi ya Judge ya kufuta kile kifungu cha katiba hajajatekelezwa. Mtikila hajashinda hii kesi bado, wait for the appel.

Turudi kwenye kesi ya Kikatiba. Ikitokea kesi ambayo hukumu yake inasema "hukumu ya kifo ni kinyume na Katiba kwa sababu inapingana na kipengele kinachosema Kila mtu ana haki ya kulindwa maisha yake n.k" halafu kesho yake kuna hukumu ya mtu kunyongwa je mtu yule anyongwe wakati mahakama inasema sheria inayohalalisha hukumu ya kifo ni kinyume cha Katiba? Tukiangalia ibara ya 30:5 jibu ni ndiyo, kwa sababu ingawa mahakama imesema sheria hiyo ni kinyume na Katiba, sheria hiyo bado ina nguvu na inapaswa kufuatwa.

'Kila mtu ana haki ya kulindwa maisha yake n.k" lets put this way, Kila mtu ana haki ya KUISHI. Thats means, we dont expect somebody with or without intention to kill another person. But if it happen, what do you think the law should do to them? Say sorry and allow them to live wait for the next person to kill another , and another, and another na wasihukumiwe kunyongwa kwamba sheria itakiukwa? what about them killing wengine? hao walio wauwa hawakuwa na haki ya kuishi ama maisha yao kulindwa?
Mtu yule atanyongwa kwa sababu atakuwa amefall kwenye kesi zenye hukumu hiyo 'kunyongwa', For sure, endapo katiba itasema kama ulivyoweka hapo juu, hiyo hiyo katiba haiwezi sema kesi so and so watu wahukumiwe kunyongwa.

Tatizo lake ni kuwa hukumu ya Kikatiba haina ulazima wa injunction ya kuizuia serikali nk kutii amri ya mahakama (hata kama ni mahakama ya chini) pending appeal. Kwenye kesi ya kifo, je tukiamua kumuua huyu mtu baada ya hukumu kutolewa na kabla ya rufaa kumalizwa, itakapokuja mwishoni (kwenye mahakama ya rufaa) ikakubaliana na mahakama ya chini kuwa kweli sheria ile ni kinyume na Katiba.. tutawezaje kuhalalisha kitendo hicho cha sisi kama jamii kumuua mtu wakati tumeambiwa na mahakama kuwa ni kinyume na Katiba tangu kabla hatujamuua?

Mkjj, Mahakama husika ikitoa hukumu ya mtu kunyongwa, then defence wakakata rufaa, YULE MTU HAWEZI KUNYONGWA HATA SIKU MOJA KABLA RUFAA KUMALIZIKA (kama imeshatokea naomba mfano). Ila, yule mtu ataendelea kukaa JELA na hukumu yake itasomeka Rufani-kunyongwa. Defence wakishinda kesi, then ataachiwa ama kufungwa kutokana na maamuzi ya majudge kusikiliza facts za kesi, ushahidi na uzito wa kesi yenyewe, akishindwa appeal, Appeal court watakubaliana na Maamuzi ya Hakimu aliyotoa hukumu ya kunyongwa. Ni baada ya appeal.

Thanks,
Lizy

 

[Lizy]

Kuhani nadhani tuko upande mmoja. Mimi tatizo langu ni hilo je Mahakama inapotangaza kipengele au sheria fulani ni kinyume na Katiba na serikali inapanga kukata rufaa, je sheria au kipengele hicho kiendelee kutumika? Jibu la kipengele cha 30:5 ni kuwa ndiyo sheriia au kipengele hicho bado kina nguvu na hatuna budi kukitii.

Mkjj,
Kama Serikali haijakata rufaa (imepanga as u have put), then Maamuzi ya Mahakama yatatekelezwa mara moja (kusitishwa kipengele hico mara moja). ILA kama Serikali itakuwa imekata Rufaa, basi kile kipengele kitaendelea kuwa halali mpaka hapo Mahakama ya Rufaa itakapo toa Maamuzi ya either kukubali Maamuzi ya Mahakama kuu ama kuyakataa na kuona kipengele hicho ni halali.

Kuhani;
So far, wakati kesi ipo Mahakama ya Rufaa kusubiri Maamuzi, then bado tutaendelea kufall kwenye kile kile kipengele ambacho kimekataliwa na Mahakama ya Mwanzo, thats the bad thing. Sababu ni kwamba bado kina nguvu, na waliokiweka wanataka kiendelee kuwepo (thats why wamekata rufaa).

Kwa kesi ya Mtikila, its pity kwamba Serikali ilifanya Usanii wakati kesi bado ipo kwenye appeal process (nafikiri mpaka sasa), Katiba ikafanyiwa mabadiliko. Sijui kama Mabadiliko hayo yalipangwa kufanyika kabla ya kesi hiyo (coincidence) ama ndio hivyo tena usanii. Na sijui nini itakuwa maamuzi ya Mahakama ya Rufaa katika kesi hii, hasa baada ya mabadiliko ya katiba ambayo hata hivyo bado hayana favor kwa mgombea binafsi. Au Mahakama ya rufaa itatoa Maamuzi kwa vipengele vilivyolalamikiwa na mdai (mtikila) ambavyo havipo tena kwenye katiba.

Lizy.

 

[Mzee Mwanakijiji]

Mkjj, Mahakama husika ikitoa hukumu ya mtu kunyongwa, then defence wakakata rufaa, YULE MTU HAWEZI KUNYONGWA HATA SIKU MOJA KABLA RUFAA KUMALIZIKA (kama imeshatokea naomba mfano). Ila, yule mtu ataendelea kukaa JELA na hukumu yake itasomeka Rufani-kunyongwa. Defence wakishinda kesi, then ataachiwa ama kufungwa kutokana na maamuzi ya majudge kusikiliza facts za kesi, ushahidi na uzito wa kesi yenyewe, akishindwa appeal, Appeal court watakubaliana na Maamuzi ya Hakimu aliyotoa hukumu ya kunyongwa. Ni baada ya appeal.

Thanks,
Lizy

You missed the point..

Mahakama inasema kuwa fulani amehukumiwa kunyongwa (kwa mfano sasa hivi kuna watu wanasubiri kunyongwa na wamemaliza appeals zote, wanasubiri siku tu). Sasa say hiyo adhabu (kunyongwa) kunatakiwa kufanyika tarehe 27 wiki ijayo. Sasa tarehe 23 Mahakama Kuu inatoa agizo kuwa hukumu ya kunyonga ni kinyume na Katiba. Je tunamnyonga yule mtu huku tukijua mahakama imesema hukumu hiyo ni kinyume na Katiba na wakati ibara ya 30:5 inasema kuwa as long as sheria hiyo haijabailishwa na Bunge au muda haujapita bado inakuwa halali? Je tumnyonge kana kwamba hatujasikia kuwa adhabu hiyo ni kinyume na Katiba?

 

[Mzee Mwanakijiji]

Mkjj,
Kama Serikali haijakata rufaa (imepanga as u have put), then Maamuzi ya Mahakama yatatekelezwa mara moja (kusitishwa kipengele hico mara moja). ILA kama Serikali itakuwa imekata Rufaa, basi kile kipengele kitaendelea kuwa halali mpaka hapo Mahakama ya Rufaa itakapo toa Maamuzi ya either kukubali Maamuzi ya Mahakama kuu ama kuyakataa na kuona kipengele hicho ni halali.

Lizy umefanya jambo la hatari kweli hapo mshirika. Umeongeza maneno kwenye Katiba. Umesema "Maamuzi ya Mahakama yatatekelezwa mara moja". Point yangu ni kuwa Katiba haisemi hivyo. Ndiyo maana hadi leo hatuna wagombea huru licha ya mahakama kusema vinginevyo, na kabla ya serikali haijakata rufaa.

Kuhani;
So far, wakati kesi ipo Mahakama ya Rufaa kusubiri Maamuzi, then bado tutaendelea kufall kwenye kile kile kipengele ambacho kimekataliwa na Mahakama ya Mwanzo, thats the bad thing. Sababu ni kwamba bado kina nguvu, na waliokiweka wanataka kiendelee kuwepo (thats why wamekata rufaa).

Kwa kesi ya Mtikila, its pity kwamba Serikali ilifanya Usanii wakati kesi bado ipo kwenye appeal process (nafikiri mpaka sasa), Katiba ikafanyiwa mabadiliko. Sijui kama Mabadiliko hayo yalipangwa kufanyika kabla ya kesi hiyo (coincidence) ama ndio hivyo tena usanii. Na sijui nini itakuwa maamuzi ya Mahakama ya Rufaa katika kesi hii, hasa baada ya mabadiliko ya katiba ambayo hata hivyo bado hayana favor kwa mgombea binafsi. Au Mahakama ya rufaa itatoa Maamuzi kwa vipengele vilivyolalamikiwa na mdai (mtikila) ambavyo havipo tena kwenye katiba.
Lizy.

Unaweza kuwa umeona tatizo la ibara ya 30:5 au bado?

 

[Kuhani]

...Mahakama inasema kuwa fulani amehukumiwa kunyongwa (kwa mfano sasa hivi kuna watu wanasubiri kunyongwa na wamemaliza appeals zote, wanasubiri siku tu). Sasa say hiyo adhabu (kunyongwa) kunatakiwa kufanyika tarehe 27 wiki ijayo. Sasa tarehe 23 Mahakama Kuu inatoa agizo kuwa hukumu ya kunyonga ni kinyume na Katiba. Je tunamnyonga yule mtu huku tukijua mahakama imesema hukumu hiyo ni kinyume na Katiba na wakati ibara ya 30:5 inasema kuwa as long as sheria hiyo haijabailishwa na Bunge au muda haujapita bado inakuwa halali? Je tumnyonge kana kwamba hatujasikia kuwa adhabu hiyo ni kinyume na Katiba?

Atanyongwa.

Kuwa kinyume na Katiba haina maana batili!

Katiba ya Tanzania haina "Supremacy Clause," inayosema kwamba Katiba ndio Supreme law of the land.

Ha aha aaaaa!

 

[Lizy]

Lizy umefanya jambo la hatari kweli hapo mshirika. Umeongeza maneno kwenye Katiba. Umesema "Maamuzi ya Mahakama yatatekelezwa mara moja". Point yangu ni kuwa Katiba haisemi hivyo. Ndiyo maana hadi leo hatuna wagombea huru licha ya mahakama kusema vinginevyo, na kabla ya serikali haijakata rufaa.

Serikali ili/imekata Rufaa, and you know it Mkjj. Na ndio maana kile kipengela hakijabadilishwa. Na kesi bado iko kwenye process ya appeal, unless sielewi tunaelekea wapi katika hili.

Unaweza kuwa umeona tatizo la ibara ya 30:5 au bado
Bado, as long as Kesi iko kwenye appeal process.

 

[Shadow]

This is shadow,
mwkjj, your argument can be well perceived in this Ugandan Case:
ATTORNEY GENERAL v SALVATORI ABUKI

SUPREME COURT CONSTITUTIONAL APPEAL NO. 1 OF 1998

(CORAM: WAMBUZI, C.J., ODER, TSEKOOKO, KAROKORA, MULENGA

KANYEIHAMBA, MUKASA – KIKONYOGO, J.J.S.C.)

MAY 25, 1999

Constitutional Law – Constitutionality of offences – Witchcraft – Definition – Witchcraft Act, (Chapter 108), sections 2 and 3 – Whether the definition of witchcraft is vague and insufficient – Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995, Article 28(12) – Banishment order – Witchcraft Act, (Chapter 108), section 7 – Whether the order was unconstitutional – Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995, Articles 24 and 44 – Whether the banishment of the petitioner amounted to compulsory deprivation or acquisition of the petitioners property – Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995, Article 26(2) – Whether the exclusion order amounted to a threat to livelihood – Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995, Article 22

The respondents were charged and convicted with practising witchcraft under the Witchcraft Act. The first respondent was convicted on his own plea of guilty and sentenced to twenty-two months imprisonment and banished from home for ten years after serving the sentence of imprisonment. They petitioned and were granted declaration that the sections interpreting witchcraft, sections 2 and 3 of the Witchcraft Act, were void for being vague and ambiguous and did not meet the requirements of Article 28(12) of the Constitution; the exclusion order was unconstitutional because it threatened the petitioners life by depriving him of the means of subsistence and deprived him of access to his property, and was therefore, inhuman as it was a threat to life and contravened Articles 22 and 44(a) of the Constitution. By depriving the petitioner of access to his property, the exclusion order contravened Articles 26 of the Constitution as well and; the petitioner was entitled to immediate release from custody. On appeal, it was contended by the appellant that the court erred in law in holding that section 3 of the Witchcraft Act does not define the offence of witchcraft and therefore, contravenes Articles 28(12) of the Constitution and, court erred in holding that a banishment order or exclusion order under the Witchcraft Act is unconstitutional and amounted to a threat to livelihood, which is a threat to life contrary to Article 22 of the Constitution.

Held: (i) every criminal offence must be defined by law, in accordance with Article 28(12) of the Constitution, with the exception of contempt of court. However, not every word should be defined, nor need the offence be defined in the section, which creates the offence. There is no offence known as witchcraft, but offences in relation to witchcraft, which is defined under section 2 of the Witchcraft Act by exclusion. Witchcraft is spirit worship or the manufacture, supply or sale of native medicines, which is not bona fide and, is a supernatural means. Sections 2, 3 and 6 of the Witchcraft Act give a fair idea of what witchcraft is and sufficient notice of the prohibited conduct. The offences in section 3 of the Witchcraft Act are clear and unambiguous. What is required is to expound the words used. If the meaning is not plain, then court is under a duty to construe the words to give effect to the objects of the legislature and to do justice to the parties. The offences in relation to witchcraft are sufficiently defined and satisfy the provisions of Article 28(12) of the Constitution;

(ii) an exclusion order under section 7 of the Witchcraft Act prohibits for such period as may be stated therein, the person in respect of whom it is made, from entering and remaining in a specified area including and surrounding the place in which the offence was committed. This does not, however, mean that the person is prohibited from entering or remaining in his or her home or land. In this case, court could only make a finding that section 7 of the Witchcraft Act is void to the extent that it authorises the making of an exclusion order excluding a person from his or her home, which would be a violation of a fundamental right of the petitioner;

(iii) in the event of a conflict or inconsistency between the Constitution and other laws, the impugned law is not to be declared void merely because one aspect of its application offends a provision of the Constitution, otherwise the words shall be void to the extent of the inconsistency are meaningless. This is in conformity with Article 273(1) of the Constitution which provides that the operation of the existing law after the coming into force of the Constitution shall not be affected by the coming into force of the Constitution, but the existing law shall be construed with such modifications, adaptations, qualifications and exceptions as may be necessary to bring it into conformity with the Constitution. In this case, section 7 of the Witchcraft Act would be null and void in so far as it empowers the imposition of a torturous, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment contrary to Article 24 of the Constitution. That modification would be necessary to enable other exclusion orders which do not offend the Constitution to be made to carry out the legitimate objects of Parliament to remove people who practice witchcraft from the areas were they practice witchcraft, presumably for their own protection and that of their victims. However, in the present case, the effect of the exclusion order on the petition was to deprive him of shelter, means of earning a living on his land and he had to look for alternate shelter and means of earning a livelihood. He could succeed in these endeavours or may be he would fail. An exclusion order under section 7 of the Witchcraft Act is cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment and accordingly, is in contravention of Articles 24 and 44(a) of the Constitution;

(iv) compulsory deprivation of property under Article 26(2) of the Constitution means total or complete deprivation.

Appeal allowed. Declarations set aside and petition dismissed. Each party bears its own costs here and in the court below.
Cases referred to:

Canadian Pacific Ltd v R (1996), 2 LRC 78

Catholic Mission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe v Attorney General Ors (1993), 2 LRC 279

Eriya Galikuwa v Rex (1951), 18 EACA 175

Grace Stuart Ibingira & Ors v Uganda, [1966] EA 306

Katikiro of Buganda v Attorney General of Uganda, [1959] EA 382

Manitoba Fisheries Ltd v R (1979), 1 SCR 101

MC Gowan v Mary Land, 366 US 420 – 6 LED 394 (1961)

Mombe Provincial Government, 1985 LRC 642

Osborne v Queen & Ors, (1991) DLR 321

R v Kimutai Arap Mursoi, (1939), 6 EACA 117

R v Kiwanuka Wa Mumbi & Ors, 14 KLR 137

Tallis & Ors v Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors (1987), LRC (Const) 351

The Queen v Big M Drug Mart Ltd (1996), LRC (Const) 332

The Queen v Peters (1886), 16 QBD 636

Legislation referred to:

Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms, sections 1, 2

Constitution of Uganda, 1962, sections 1, 19(1), 28

Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995, Articles 2, 6, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28(1), 28(12), 29(1)(b), 29(1)(c), 29(2), 44, 273(1)

Public Service Employment Act RSC 1985, section 33 (Canada)

Witchcraft Act, (Chapter 108), sections 2, 3, 5(1), 6, 7

Counsel for the appellant: Mr. Cheborion.

Counsel for the respondent: Mr. Emoru.

 

[Mzee Mwanakijiji]

Lizy umefanya jambo la hatari kweli hapo mshirika. Umeongeza maneno kwenye Katiba. Umesema "Maamuzi ya Mahakama yatatekelezwa mara moja". Point yangu ni kuwa Katiba haisemi hivyo. Ndiyo maana hadi leo hatuna wagombea huru licha ya mahakama kusema vinginevyo, na kabla ya serikali haijakata rufaa.

Serikali ili/imekata Rufaa, and you know it Mkjj. Na ndio maana kile kipengela hakijabadilishwa. Na kesi bado iko kwenye process ya appeal, unless sielewi tunaelekea wapi katika hili.

Unaweza kuwa umeona tatizo la ibara ya 30:5 au bado
Bado, as long as Kesi iko kwenye appeal process.

Lizy.. je kama mtu amehukumiwa katika kesi aidha ya madai au ya jinai na anampango wa kukata rufaa, analazimika kutii amri ya mwanzo kwanza au ile amri ya awali haina nguvu kwa vile ameamua kukata rufaa? Je kukata rufaa kunasuspend hukumu ya awali automatically?

 

[Lizy]

You missed the point..

Mahakama inasema kuwa fulani amehukumiwa kunyongwa (kwa mfano sasa hivi kuna watu wanasubiri kunyongwa na wamemaliza appeals zote, wanasubiri siku tu). Sasa say hiyo adhabu (kunyongwa) kunatakiwa kufanyika tarehe 27 wiki ijayo. Sasa tarehe 23 Mahakama Kuu inatoa agizo kuwa hukumu ya kunyonga ni kinyume na Katiba. Je tunamnyonga yule mtu huku tukijua mahakama imesema hukumu hiyo ni kinyume na Katiba na wakati ibara ya 30:5 inasema kuwa as long as sheria hiyo haijabailishwa na Bunge au muda haujapita bado inakuwa halali? Je tumnyonge kana kwamba hatujasikia kuwa adhabu hiyo ni kinyume na Katiba?

Mwkjj,
Nitajaribu kukujibu kwa kufuata sheria za Makosa ya Jinai, once hili ni kosa la Jinai na sio MADAI.

Judge ama yeyote atakayedai hukumu ya kifo ni kinyume na sheria anatakiwa kujustify kesi yake. Kwa nini anadai ni kinyume cha katiba, katiba ipi, na je katiba hiyo imependekeza nini kureplace adhabu hiyo.
Anyway, tuseme Judge ametoa hayo maagizo, bado ninategemea Serikali itakata Rufaa against hiyo order, kwa vile ni appeal against hukumu in general and not an individual for sure there will be no excution kwa hao wengine ambao tarehe zao zitakuwa zimefika. Though, hukumu ya kifo bado itaendelea kuwa valid na watu wataendelea kuhukumiwa na kufall Automatic kwenye appeal against the sentence.

I can give you an example;
UK pia walikuwa na adhabu ya kifo. Adhabu hiyo ilifutwa rasmi Feb 01, 2004, through Human Rights Act 1998 (C-42). 'The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed'. Act hiyo haikuishia hapo , ilireplace adhabu hiyo as; "Any liability under the M5Army Act 1955, the M6Air Force Act 1955 or the M7Naval Discipline Act 1957 to suffer death for an offence is replaced by a liability to imprisonment for life or any less punishment authorised by those Acts; and those Acts shall accordingly have effect with the necessary modifications". It all started in the 1st Protocal, Part 1-Article 2(1) ya Act hiyo (HRA) inayosema; 'Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law'.

Haya ni makosa ya JINAI, procedure zake ni tofauti kabisa na makosa ya MADAI. So for this one, kesi ya Mtikila haiingiliani kabisa.

 

[Lizy]

Lizy.. je kama mtu amehukumiwa katika kesi aidha ya madai au ya jinai na anampango wa kukata rufaa, analazimika kutii amri ya mwanzo kwanza au ile amri ya awali haina nguvu kwa vile ameamua kukata rufaa? Je kukata rufaa kunasuspend hukumu ya awali automatically?

Mwkjj,
Kwa neno 'Ana mpango wa kukata rufaa', thats means hajakata rufaa bado, in that case ile hukumu iliyotolewa na Judge either madai ama Rufaa inakuwa na nguvu. Ninakubaliana na wewe 100% kwamba analazimika kutii amri iliyotolewa na Mahakama. (Na hapa, don't call it ya mwanzo sababu ni moja tu mpaka sasa, itapendeza ukitumia 'iliyotolewa na Mahakama than 'Mwanzo')

ILA, Kama atakuwa amekata Rufaa, Basi Amri ya Mahakama haitakuwa na nguvu, itabidi wasubiri matunda/majibu ya Rufaa.

Lizy

 

[Augustoons]

Augustinoons, thanks.
"au ikasema ikasema kwamba sheria hii ni unconstitutional na kutoa mwanya kwa serikali kuirekebisha". Hii (kutoa mwanya) itawakilishwa vipi huko serikalini? Je, ni kwa kuishauri serikali irekebishe sheria hiyo ama kwa KUIAMURU serikali ibadili sheria hiyo, ama kwa kukaa kimya na its up to serikali kugundua hilo na kubadili hiyo sheria (endapo itatakiwa kubadilishwa)?


"Na kwa upande wa rufaa,kwa mujibu wa sheria rufaa au kusudio la kukata rufaa halizuii utekelezaji wa hukumu unless kama muomba au kata rufaa ameomba kusitisha utekelezaji wa hukumu yaani "stay of execution" hivyo iwapo serikali imekata rufaa bila kuomba stay bado utekelezaji wa kilichoshinda unaweza kuendelea tu"

Hapo pia nimepotea. Sidhani kama kitu imekatiwa rufaa then tuseme imeshinda na utekelezaji wake uendelee. Mind you hii ni kesi ya madai na siyo jinai. Kwa kesi ya Mtikila ambayo ndio tunaiongelea sasa, serikali imekata rufaa, then wewe unadai Madai ya Mtikila yapitishwa/ameshinda vile serikali haija sitisha, so whats the meaning of appeal? Na endapo serikali ikipitisha madai ya Mtikila kama ilivyoamriwa na High Court, Vipi Mahakama ya Rufaa ikija kupitisha madai ya Serikali na kuquash madai ya Mtikila? Je, tutavunja hii sheria iliyopendekezwa katika madai ya Mtikila na kurudia ile ya Mwanzo (iliyoonekana incorect High Court, na kuonekana correct Appeal court), ama itabidi iundwe sheria mpya kabisa, au ndio zote zivunjwe na kusiwepo na sheria ya namna hiyo au itakuwa vipi? Katika hili, naomba unijibu katika sheria za kesi za madai na siyo jinai.

Thanks,
Lizy

AsantHii (kutoa mwanya) itawakilishwa vipi huko serikalini? Je, ni kwa kuishauri serikali irekebishe sheria hiyo ama kwa KUIAMURU serikali ibadili sheria hiyo, ama kwa kukaa kimya na its up to serikali kugundua hilo na kubadili hiyo sheria (endapo itatakiwa kubadilishwa)?

Mahakama kutokana na inherent power zake inao uwezo hata wa kutoa muda maalumu wa marekebisho hayo kufanywa,ila katika kufanya hivyo kuna vitu vingi vinaangaliwa ikiwemo public policy,economic effects na athari za kuamua hivyo kwa nchi.Lakini katika uzoefu wa kesi nyingi za kikatiba ambazo mahakama imeshafanya kama ikitangaza kuwa kipengele fulani ni unconstitutional halafu serikali ikapewa nafasi ya kukirekebisha haikufanya hivyo,mahakama itaendelea kutambua kipengele hicho kama si sheria,hivyo kesho mtu akishtakiwa kwa kipengele hichohicho ambacho serikali haikukirekebisha wala kukikatia rufaa bado anayo defense kwamba mahakama ilishawahi kutangaza kuwa ni unconstitutional na matokeo yake yatakuwa yule mtu kuachiwa kwa kuwa mahakama inafungwa na maamuzi yake yenyewe isipokuwa tu pale yatakapogeuzwa na mahakama ya rufani.

Na kwa upande wa rufaa,kwa mujibu wa sheria rufaa au kusudio la kukata rufaa halizuii utekelezaji wa hukumu unless kama muomba au kata rufaa ameomba kusitisha utekelezaji wa hukumu yaani "stay of execution" hivyo iwapo serikali imekata rufaa bila kuomba stay bado utekelezaji wa kilichoshinda unaweza kuendelea tu"

Katika kesi yoyote iwe ya madai au jinai hukumu ikishatolewa na mahakama yoyote maombi ya kukata rufani hayazuii utekelezaji wa hukumu iliyokwisha tolewa na mahakama ya chini isipokuwa tu kama kuna sheria inasema kuwa maombi yatazuia utekelezaji wa hukumu kama ilivyo katika basic rights and duties enforcement Act kwa kesi za kikatiba,na pili utekelezaji wa hukumu utasimama tu endapo mkata rufani ameomba stay of execution(yaani usimamishwaji wa utekelezaji hukumu).Hapa namaanisha kwamba mf.wewe lizy na mimi tumeshtakiana halafu mimi nikakushinda kesi hukuridhika,iwapo unataka kukata rufaa na kusimamisha utekelezaji wa hukumu lazima ufanye vitu viwili,moja ufile maombi ya kukata rufaa ndani ya muda maalumu,na pili uombe stay of execution.Bahati mbaya sana stay of execution haifanyi kazi kwenye criminal cases kwa mtindo wa civil cases.Kwenye criminal case kuna mtindo mwingine kabisa ambao ndani ya maombi ya kukata rufaa unakuwa na maombi ya bail pending appeal,hivyo ukifanikiwa unatoka nje ukisubiri rufaa.Hivyo lizy kama hukuomba stay mimi naweza nikaenda kuomba kukazia hukumu(execution)hata kabla rufaa haijaanzwa kusikilizwa na kama kunilipa ukanilipa kile ulichopaswa kunilipa.


Hapo pia nimepotea. Sidhani kama kitu imekatiwa rufaa then tuseme imeshinda na utekelezaji wake uendelee. Mind you hii ni kesi ya madai na siyo jinai. Kwa kesi ya Mtikila ambayo ndio tunaiongelea sasa, serikali imekata rufaa, then wewe unadai Madai ya Mtikila yapitishwa/ameshinda vile serikali haija sitisha, so whats the meaning of appeal? Na endapo serikali ikipitisha madai ya Mtikila kama ilivyoamriwa na High Court, Vipi Mahakama ya Rufaa ikija kupitisha madai ya Serikali na kuquash madai ya Mtikila? Je, tutavunja hii sheria iliyopendekezwa katika madai ya Mtikila na kurudia ile ya Mwanzo (iliyoonekana incorect High Court, na kuonekana correct Appeal court), ama itabidi iundwe sheria mpya kabisa, au ndio zote zivunjwe na kusiwepo na sheria ya namna hiyo au itakuwa vipi? Katika hili, naomba unijibu katika sheria za kesi za madai na siyo jinai

Kuhusu kesi ya Mtikila
Kesi hii ni ya madai ya kikatiba ambapo kidogo utaratibu wake ni tofauti na utaratibu wa kesi za kawaida za madai.Kesi za katiba zinaongozwa na katiba yenyewe,basic right and duties enforcement Act,Appelate jurisdiction Act(kwa upande wa rufaa)na CPC.Mtikila alishinda madai yake katika mahakama kuu,serikali ikawasilisha kusudio la kukata rufaa.Ieleweke kuwa kusudio la kukata rufaa sio rufaa wala maombi ya rufaa.Unaweza kupeleka kusudio la kukata rufaa halafu muda ukapita usikate rufaa bado maamuzi ya mahakama ya awali yatasimama tu na kuwa sheria.Ila kama serikali ilipeleka kusudio la kukata rufaa na baadaye maombi ya kukata rufaa,basi kwa kesi za katiba maombi hayo pia yanatumika kama stay of execution.Hivyo uamuzi wa mahakama kuu umesimamishwa kwa muda,ambapo mahakama ya rufani ikiuthibitisha utakuwa sheria na ikiutangua(quash) basi uamuzi wa mahakama kuu utaanguka na ule wa mahakama ya rufani kuwa sheria.

Yapo matukio mbalimbali ambapo serikali imewahi kuwasilisha kusudio la kukata rufaa,halafu baadaye ikaahirisha kupeleka maombi ya rufaa kwa kuwa ndani ya serikali yenyewe tayari kulikuwa namchakato wa kubadili sheria hiyoMfano halisi ni ile kesi ya takrima ambapo AG alikusudia kukata rufaa baadaye akawithdraw kwa kuwa tayari rais alishakuwa na nia ya serikali kubadili sheria hiyo.

Na kwa kuongezea mwakilishi wa serikali katika kesi za kikatiba na madai zinazohusu serikali ni mwanasheria mkuu(AG),hivyo mahakama ikitoa uamuzi aina haja ya kuiandikia serikali ile hukumu inatosha kabisa kuwa notice kwa serikali kupitia AG.

 

[Augustoons]

Mwkjj,
Kwa neno 'Ana mpango wa kukata rufaa', thats means hajakata rufaa bado, in that case ile hukumu iliyotolewa na Judge either madai ama Rufaa inakuwa na nguvu. Ninakubaliana na wewe 100% kwamba analazimika kutii amri iliyotolewa na Mahakama. (Na hapa, don't call it ya mwanzo sababu ni moja tu mpaka sasa, itapendeza ukitumia 'iliyotolewa na Mahakama than 'Mwanzo')

ILA, Kama atakuwa amekata Rufaa, Basi Amri ya Mahakama haitakuwa na nguvu, itabidi wasubiri matunda/majibu ya Rufaa.

Lizy

Nia ya kukata rufaa inaitwa "notice of intention to appeal" nia hii sio rufaa ni taarifa tu kwa mahakama ili mahakama ifahamu kuwa hujaridhika na uamuzi wake hivyo waandae file mfano kuchapwa kwa hiyo hukumu n.k mara nyingi katika nia hii pia huambatana na maombi ya hukumu husika unayotaka kuikatia rufaa,ili mahakama ikupe nakala yake.Hii kwa baadhi ya kesi lazima ifanyike ndani ya siku 15 tangu kutolewa uamuzi.Baada ya kuwasilisha nia ya kukata rufaa,kinachofuata ni maombi ya kukata rufaa(Notice of Appeal)ambapo hapa unawasilisha memorandum of appeal au kwa kesi nyingine maombi ya ruhusa ya kukata rufaa"application for leave to appeal" hasa kwa kesi za mahakama kuu kwenda mahakama ya rufani.Leave itasikilizwa inter partes na mahakama ikikubaliana na hoja zako itatoa leave,yaani leave granted hapo sasa utapeleka rufaa yako mahakama ya rufani kwa kuandaa vitabu fulani vinaitwa "RECORD OF APPEAL" ambavyo vinakuwa vimekusanya vielelezo vyote vya ushahidi na hoja zako.

Sasa nini athari ya mchakato wa rufaa kwa uamuzi wa mahakama ya awali(yaani trial court or court of first instance).Kwa kesi za madai mathalani JIWE vs PAKA Iwapo jiwe ameshindwa na anataka kukata rufaa hata akiwasilisha nia na maombi ya rufaa bado hatua hiyo haizuii Paka kuiomba mahakama ilopitisha uamuzi huo kutekeleza hukumu yake.Kwa maana nyingine "an appeal is not an automatic stay" unless kuna stay of execution. Zipo kesi nyingi sana za mahakama kuu na mahakama ya rufani katika suala hili.Kwa upande wa jinai,kwenyewe hakuna stay mahakama ya wali ikishakuambia unakwenda jela miezi sita lazima uende jela,ukitaka kukata rufaa na uwe nje wakati rufaa yako inasikilizwa lazima ufanye kitu kinaitwa application for bail pending appeal mbali ya rufaa yenyewe. Kitu hiki aliwahi kukifanya babu seya akashindwa.Rage pia nadhani alijaribu,kwani vigezo vyake ni vya juu sana.

 

[Mzee Mwanakijiji]

Augustoons.. kwanza nashukuru kwa mchango wako kuhusu suala la Kubenea jana, mtazamo wako wa kisheria ulikuwa murua kabisa. Sasa unaposoma ibara hiyo ya 30:5 unaona tatizo gani kubwa ambalo linasababisha tatizo la kutekeleza hukumu ya Mahakama kuhusu wagombea huru?

 

[Augustoons]

Mwkjj,
Nitajaribu kukujibu kwa kufuata sheria za Makosa ya Jinai, once hili ni kosa la Jinai na sio MADAI.

Judge ama yeyote atakayedai hukumu ya kifo ni kinyume na sheria anatakiwa kujustify kesi yake. Kwa nini anadai ni kinyume cha katiba, katiba ipi, na je katiba hiyo imependekeza nini kureplace adhabu hiyo.
Anyway, tuseme Judge ametoa hayo maagizo, bado ninategemea Serikali itakata Rufaa against hiyo order, kwa vile ni appeal against hukumu in general and not an individual for sure there will be no excution kwa hao wengine ambao tarehe zao zitakuwa zimefika. Though, hukumu ya kifo bado itaendelea kuwa valid na watu wataendelea kuhukumiwa na kufall Automatic kwenye appeal against the sentence.

I can give you an example;
UK pia walikuwa na adhabu ya kifo. Adhabu hiyo ilifutwa rasmi Feb 01, 2004, through Human Rights Act 1998 (C-42). 'The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed'. Act hiyo haikuishia hapo , ilireplace adhabu hiyo as; "Any liability under the M5Army Act 1955, the M6Air Force Act 1955 or the M7Naval Discipline Act 1957 to suffer death for an offence is replaced by a liability to imprisonment for life or any less punishment authorised by those Acts; and those Acts shall accordingly have effect with the necessary modifications". It all started in the 1st Protocal, Part 1-Article 2(1) ya Act hiyo (HRA) inayosema; 'Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law'.

Haya ni makosa ya JINAI, procedure zake ni tofauti kabisa na makosa ya MADAI. So for this one, kesi ya Mtikila haiingiliani kabisa.

Mhe,Mwanakijiji
Kwanza lazima ufahamu moja ya principles za criminal law si kuoperate retrospectively au wengine wanasema retroactive.Sheria yoyote ya jinai inayo-operate retrospective ni sheria mbaya na ni unconstitutional.Retrospective kwa maana gani?kwa maana kuwa kosa ukitenda leo wakati hakuna sheria inayotamka kuwa kitendo hicho ni kosa,keshokutwa bunge haliwezi kutunga sheria itakayorudi nyuma kucover matendo ambayo kwa wakati huo hayakuwa jinai(japo mambo haya yamewahi kufanyka wakati wa chama kimoja).
Vivyo hivyo ukihukumiwa kwa kosa la kubaka leo kwenda jela miaka 30 na kesho kutwa bunge likatunga sheria yenye effect ya kutangaza kuwa kubaka si kosa tena bali ni halali,hiyo haiana maana utolewe gerezeani bado utaendelea kutumikia adhabu yako hadi umalize unless Rais atoe msamaha au sheria hiyo itamke wazi kuwa waathirika wote wa mabadiliko hayo ya sheria wataachiwa huru,kitu ambacho tayari ni kwenda retrospective(yaani sheria kurudi nyuma).Kwa upande wa madai au daawa(civil) sheria kwenda retrospective inawezekana kabisa.

 

[Kuhani]

...Mahakama kutokana na inherent power zake inao uwezo hata wa kutoa muda maalumu wa marekebisho hayo kufanywa,ila katika kufanya hivyo kuna vitu vingi vinaangaliwa ikiwemo public policy,economic effects na athari za kuamua hivyo kwa nchi.Lakini katika uzoefu wa kesi nyingi za kikatiba ambazo mahakama imeshafanya kama ikitangaza kuwa kipengele fulani ni unconstitutional halafu serikali ikapewa nafasi ya kukirekebisha haikufanya hivyo,mahakama itaendelea kutambua kipengele hicho kama si sheria,hivyo kesho mtu akishtakiwa kwa kipengele hichohicho ambacho serikali haikukirekebisha wala kukikatia rufaa bado anayo defense kwamba mahakama ilishawahi kutangaza kuwa ni unconstitutional na matokeo yake yatakuwa yule mtu kuachiwa kwa kuwa mahakama inafungwa na maamuzi yake yenyewe isipokuwa tu pale yatakapogeuzwa na mahakama ya rufani.

Kama Mahakama ikiamua adhabu ya Kifo ni kinyume na Katiba na ikaiapa Serikali miezi mitatu kubadilisha ama kufuta hiyo sheria, je, watu waliokuwa scheduled kunyongwa katika kile kipindi cha miezi mitatu watanyongwa?

Zingatia Ibara ya 30 (5) wakati unajibu.

 

[Augustoons]

Augustoons.. kwanza nashukuru kwa mchango wako kuhusu suala la Kubenea jana, mtazamo wako wa kisheria ulikuwa murua kabisa. Sasa unaposoma ibara hiyo ya 30:5 unaona tatizo gani kubwa ambalo linasababisha tatizo la kutekeleza hukumu ya Mahakama kuhusu wagombea huru?

Mambo haya bwana mwanakijiji sisi wanasheria tunayaita "technicalities",na technicalities ni mtindo wa waandika sheria"draftsmen" kutunga vipengele ambavyo saa zote vinaleta utata katika interpretation. Moja ya kipengele hicho ni ibara ya 30(5).Mahakama yenyewe imejaribu kutafsiri kipengele hicho katika kesi za katiba na hata wakati mwingine kutumia friends of court(yaani amicus curiae)
Lakini kabla sijaenda mbali zaidi naomba kwanza nitoe angalisho moja kwa wana jf wote.Kwamba tunapojadili vipengele vya katiba katiba sahihi inayotakiwa kutumiwa ni ile ya kiswahili sio ya kiingereza.Yaani the correct version is that of kiswahili and not english.Ukitumia version ya kiingereza mambo yanaweza kuwa magumu zaidi,na huu ni msimamo wa mahakama ya rufani katika kesi ya DAudi Pete dhidi ya mwanasheria mkuu.

Kwa mujibu wa katiba ya jamhuri ya muungano wa Tanzania toleo la mwaka 2000
Endapo katika shauri lolote inadaiwa kwamba sheria
yoyote iliyotungwa au hatua yoyote iliyochukuliwa na Serikali au
mamlaka nyingine inafuta au inakatiza haki, uhuru na wajibu
muhimu zitokanazo na ibara ya 12 hadi 29 za Katiba hii, na
Mahakama Kuu inaridhika kwamba sheria au hatua inayohusika,
kwa kiwango inachopingana na Katiba ni batili au kinyume cha
Katiba basi Mahakama Kuu ikiona kuwa yafaa au hali au masilahi
ya jamii yahitaji hivyo, badala ya kutamka kuwa sheria au hatua
hiyo ni batili, itakuwa na uwezo wa kuamua kutoa fursa kwa ajili
ya Serikali au mamlaka nyingine yoyote inayohusika kurekebisha
hitilafu iliyopo katika sheria inayotuhumiwa au hatua inayohusika
katika muda na kwa jinsi itakavyotajwa na Mahakama Kuu, na
sheria hiyo au hatua inayohusika itaendelea kuhesabiwa kuwa ni
halali hadi ama marekebisho yatakapofanywa au muda
uliowekwa na Mahakama Kuu utakapokwisha, mradi muda mfupi
zaidi ndio uzingatiwe.

Tafsiri au maana ya kipengele hiki inaenda kama ifuatavyo:-
kwanza lazima kuwe na lalamiko au dai kuwa sheria au hatua fulani inapingana na katiba au kukatiza haki na uhuru wa watu.
Pili mahakama kuu lazima iridhike kuwa sheria au hatua hiyo kweli ni kinyume cha katiba au inakatiza haki na uhuru wa watu.
Tatu mahakama inapewa uwezo(discretion) kwa kufuata vigezo kwa kufuata vigezo vya hali na maslahi ya jamii,kuifuta moja kwa moja sheria hiyo toka kwenye vitabu kwa kutangaza kuwa unconstitutional au badala ya kutamka kuwa sherisa hiyo ni batili basi itaipa muda au fursa serikali kuirekebisha sheria au hatua hiyo.
Hapa naomba tuwe makini sheria kuwa unconstitutional sio lazima iwe batili kwa mujibu wa tafsiri yake hapa juu kwa maana kuwa mahakama inaweza kuona kweli sheria au hatua fulani ni kinyume cha katiba ila haitasema kuwa ni batili bali itaipa muda serikali kuibadili sheria hiyo[hali hii ilitokea katika kesi ya SUWATA,LHRC na wengineo dhidi ya Serikali ambapo hizo NGO zilikuwa zinadai sheria ya miradhi ni batili,kwa kuwa ni kiyume cha katiba na hivyo inamtesa mwanamke.Mahakama pamoja na kukubaliana nao,bado ilsita kuitangaza sheria hiyo kuwa ni batili na badala yake iliipa muda serikali kuibadili sheria hiyo pamoja na mabadiliko ya jamii yenyewe.
Athari ya mahakama kutangaza kuwa sheria moja ni unconstitutional,pili ni batili ni kuifuta sheria hiyo kabisa bila kuipa serikali muda.

Kwa upande mwingine katika kesi maarufu kama ya Takrima yaani LHRC and others VS AG,mahakama ilitumia uwezo wake wa kwanza katika ibara ya 30(5) bila kuipa muda serikali kwa kutangaza moja kwa moja kuwa sheria hiyo ni kinyume cha katiba na kwa maana hiyo ni batili,na hivyo matokeo yake ni kuifuta toka kwenye statute book.Ikumbukwe kuwa haikufutwa sheria yote,ni kipengele husika kwa maana ya section au ibara.

Kwa ufupi hiyo ndiyo tafsri ya ibara ya 30(5) mahakama ina option 2,kwanza kuifuta kabisa sheria bila kuipa serikali muda wa kuirekebisha,pili kutangaza kuwa sheria fulani inapingana na katiba na hivyo kuipa muda serikali kuirekebisha.Lakini uzoefu unaonesha mahakama huwa haitoi muda maalumu kwa serikali japo inao uwezo wa kufanya hivyo.Na kama ikitoa muda kamili wa kufanya hiyo athari yake ni amri,ambayo baada ya muda huo kupita sheria hiyo inakuwa imefutika automatically.

Naomba kuwasilisha

 

[Augustoons]

Kama Mahakama ikiamua adhabu ya Kifo ni kinyume na Katiba na ikaiapa Serikali miezi mitatu kubadilisha ama kufuta hiyo sheria, je, watu waliokuwa scheduled kunyongwa katika kile kipindi cha miezi mitatu watanyongwa?

Zingatia Ibara ya 30 (5) wakati unajibu.

Bado watanyongwa endapo walihukumiwa kabla ya sheria hiyo kutangazwa kuwa kinyume cha katiba,kwani ni mahakama hiyohiyo ambayo iliwahukumu kifo hivyo uamuzi wake unaifunga.Lakini ikumbukwe kuwa kazi ya mahakama inaishia pale kwenye kuhukumu,utekelezaji wake sio kazi ya mahakama ni kazi ya serikali(executive).Hivyo iwapo let say umehukumiwa kunyongwa leo,kesho katika kesi nyingine mtu akachallenge adhabu ya kifo kuwa ni unconstitutional kama alivyofanya mbushuu dominic na wenzake,na mahakama ikakubaliana nao na kuwapa miezi 3 wairekebishe hiyo sheria serikali haikuirekebisha,na wewe uliyyehukumiwa jana hukukata rufaa(japo kwenye kesi za hukumu ya kifo hii huwa automatic right) basi utanyongwa kama serikali ikiamua unyongwe na yule aliyechallenge adhabu hiyo atakuwa amesalimika kwani baada ya hiyo miezi mitatu adhabu ya kifo haitakuwa sheria tena

Kila kesi ikija mahakamani watu kwa kutumia doctrine of precedents au stre decisis watatyumia uamuzi wa mahakama hiyohiyo kujiokoa,unless kama uamuzi huo ulitupiliwa mbali na mahakama ya juu.Vilevile mahakama ikitangaza mara moja kuwa adhabu ya kifo ni kinyume cha katiba na hivyo ni batili,basi ni jukumu la AG kukata rufaa mahakama ya rufani au kutokata rufani ambapo itamaanisha amekubaliana na mahakama kuu. Hata hivyo atakayefaidika na umauzi huo ni huyu mshitakiwa wa mwisho wale waliokwisha hukumiwa huko nyuma hawana haki

 

[Kuhani]

Tafsiri au maana ya kipengele hiki inaenda kama ifuatavyo:-

...mahakama inapewa uwezo(discretion) kwa kufuata vigezo kwa kufuata vigezo vya hali na maslahi ya jamii,kuifuta moja kwa moja sheria hiyo toka kwenye vitabu kwa kutangaza kuwa unconstitutional ...

Hapa naomba tuwe makini sheria kuwa unconstitutional sio lazima iwe batili kwa mujibu wa tafsiri yake hapa juu....

...mahakama ilitumia uwezo wake wa kwanza katika ibara ya 30(5) bila kuipa muda serikali kwa kutangaza moja kwa moja kuwa sheria hiyo ni kinyume cha katiba na kwa maana hiyo ni batili,na hivyo matokeo yake ni kuifuta toka kwenye statute book.

Naomba kuwasilisha

Wapi imesemwa kwamba "mahakama inapewa uwezo(discretion) kwa kufuata...." sheria batili?

Halafu fafanua contradiction ya maneno mekundu.

Naomba kuuliza.

 

[Kuhani]

Bado watanyongwa endapo walihukumiwa kabla ya sheria hiyo kutangazwa kuwa kinyume cha katiba...

Vipi Mahakama ikisema kulazimisha kugombea kupitia chama ni kinyume cha Katiba halafu ikaipa miezi mitatu Serikali kubadili Katiba.

Uchaguzi ukija miezi miwili baada ya hukumu ya Mahakama mshitaki atanyimwa haki kugombea bila chama?

(Sijasema lolote hapa kuhusu, na naomba usilete, mijadala ya rufaa.)

 

[Mzee Mwanakijiji]

Augustoons.. rudi kurasa chache hapo nyuma nimeweka hukumu ya kesi hii ya wagombea huru na utusaidie katika tafsiri yake.