Membe: Malawi haiwezi kuishtaki Tanzania ICJ, Tanzania haiitambui ICJ

[EMT]

Totally confused! So what can you say about Membe's statement Mkuu?

Mkuu EMT,
Sijampotosha mtu. Nilikuwa najaribu kumwelezea in simple language uhusiano wa ICC na ICJ. Ukienda ndani ni kweli kuna tofauti nyingi kati ya mahakama hizo. Ni sawa na mtu kuelezea utofauti wa mahakama kuu ya Tanzania na ile mahakama kuu ya Zanzibar. Binafsi in a simple language nitasema ICJ ndio World courts na hizo zingine zina jurisdiction ndogo kuliko ICJ.

Any way lengo langu likuwa kutafsiri statement ya Membe kitu ambacho ni kweli kama alivyosema kwamba Tanzania ni member lakini haijatoa tamko kukubali maamuzi ya ICJ. Ni member kwasababu nchi zote za UN automatically zinakuwa part ya hii ICJ.

Lakini jurisdiction ina mambo manne ambayo inafuata:
1. Nchi kutoa tamko kutambua maamuzi ya hiyo court.
2. Nchi wahusika kuamua kwenye issue specific kwamba watatambua maamuzi.
3. kwenye mkataba unaoongelewa kuwa na kifungu ambacho kinaonyesha wazi kwamba ICJ atakuwa mwamuzi kwenye ugomvi utakaotokana na mkataba huo.
4. Hii ya nne nimeshindwa kuielewa vizuri.

Membe yuko sahihi na hata lecturer mmoja wa malawi kaelezea hivyo hivyo kwamba Malawi haiwezi kuishitaki Tanzania ICJ bila Tanzania kukubali kwenda huko.

Right. Tanzania is entitled to appear before the ICJ since 16 December 1964. However, Tanzania has not made a declaration to recognize the compulsory the jurisdiction of the ICJ. Malawi is entitled to appear before the ICJ since 1 December 1964. Malawi also made a declaration on 12 December 1966 to recognize the compulsory the jurisdiction of the ICJ.

What is the implication for making or not making a declaration to recognise the compulsory the jurisdiction of the ICJ? A State which has recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ has in principle the right to bring any one or more other State which has accepted the same obligation before the ICJ by filing an application instituting proceedings with the ICJ, and, conversely, it has undertaken to appear before the ICJ should proceedings be instituted against it by one or more such other States.

Kwa maana hiyo Membe anaweza kuwa kweli kuwa Malawi cannot bring a case at the ICJ unless Tanzania agrees, but Tanzania can bring a claim against Malawi at the ICJ without the agreement of Malawi because Malawi has accepted compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ.

But there are two issues. First, under what international agreement, Tanzania is relying? Does such international agreement does not state that in case of any dispute, it should be referred to the ICJ? I am asking this because it may be that the treaty or the convention Tanzania is relying provides that in case of any dispute, it should be referred to the ICJ?

Secondly, Membe anatuambia kuwa Tanzania wants to solve this issue once and for all. Sasa kama the only way to solve this problem is through the ICJ, Tanzania itakakataa kuitumia ICJ to solve the problem? Malawi does not want mediation being proposed by Tanzania. Kama Malawi hawataibuka kwenye hiyo meeting ijayo kuchagua mediator, basi Tanzania itajichagulia mediator yenyewe. I thought a mediator must be chosed by both parties? Neither one really believes that fighting is an option that either side would countenance.

Hapa naona tuu the most effect way would be to refer the issue to the ICJ as I can't see negotiations going anywhere. Huu mgogoro umekuwepo looong time na negotiations zilishindikana, sembuze leo tena baada ya kugundulika kwa gas humo ziwani?

The ICJ imeshatatua far trickier boundary disputes kati ya Cameroon and Nigeria juu ya Bakassi Peninsula and Ziwa Chad (Case of Land and Maritine Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea Intervening) (merits) judgment of 10 October 2002). ICJ pia imetatua mgogro wa mpaka kati Burkina Faso and Mali na pia and Libya and Chad.

Tanzania inaogopa kwenda ICJ kwa sababu kuna uwezekano mkubwa itakula kwetu. It is clear that the Heligoland Treaty 1890 holds the key in this dispute. This treaty remains the only evidence as to where the border lies. And the most critical this is that since then the African Union has constantly maintained that African states should adhere to the boundaries as they existed at independence - and a resolution to this effect was adopted at Cairo in 1964.

In deed, he Constitutive Act of the African serves as the as the supreme law on the African continent. Therefore, Malawi and Tanzania as members of the African Union are bound to respect the Lake Nyasa border as it was at independence.

In the absence of any evidence that the borders were altered by the British, the matter would ultimately fall back on the Heligoland Treaty 1890. Indeed, the ICJ referred to the agreements that were signed between the former colonial powers – namely Britain, France and Germany – in deciding the dispute between Cameroon and Nigeria over the Bakassi Peninsula and Lake Chad since the ICJ acknowledges that such agreements constitute binding agreements, like treaties.

Najua Tanzania ina-rely pia on a principle of international law to the effect that where countries are separated by a body of water, the boundary separating the countries lies along the middle of the body of water (Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982). Some argue that the Convention applies to internal waters such as lakes, whilst others argue that this principle only applies to coastal areas and oceans and so does not apply to Lake Nyasa.

Interestingly, the countries that are separated by Lake Victoria – namely Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya – do share ownership of the lake. However, they do not share it equally.Wasije Wakenya na Waganda wakadai tugawane Ziwa Victoria equally.

Quite interesting.

 

[Azipa]

But there are two issues. First, under what international agreement, Tanzania is relying? Does such international agreement does not state that in case of any dispute, it should be referred to the ICJ? I am asking this because it may be that the treaty or the convention Tanzania is relying provides that in case of any dispute, it should be referred to the ICJ?

By the looks of things the matter will ultimately be settled by ICJ. Call Membe a pragmatist if you want, like I said earlier his strategy is to first create a standoff while we're preparing necessary documents

Tanzania inaogopa kwenda ICJ kwa sababu kuna uwezekano mkubwa itakula kwetu. It is clear that the Heligoland Treaty 1890 holds the key in this dispute. This treaty remains the only evidence as to where the border lies. And the most critical this is that since then the African Union has constantly maintained that African states should adhere to the boundaries as they existed at independence - and a resolution to this effect was adopted at Cairo in 1964..

The Heligoland Treaty, it is said, was only redefining spheres of influence. But when you talk about actual boundaries these ones were agreed upon at The Berlin conference. AU should recognise boundaries not spheres of influence

The Heligoland treaty redefined German East Africa sphere of influence no boundary change especially with regard to Nyasaland .And the evidence of that is

1. British colonial government letters in early 1900s before Nyasaland joined the Federation of Rhodesia, they describe Nyasaland as being situated west of Lake Nyasa

2.By the time the World War 1 starts Germany had four ports on lake Nyasa while Britain had only one which was actually being owned by a Chartered Company located near the mouth of River Songwe, 20 miles north of Karonga

3.One of the FIRST VICTORIES OF BRITISH NAVAL BATTLES happened on Lake Nyasa. Britain and Germany used to share the lake. However, on the verge of The First World War, Commander Rhoades of Britain received a Telegram informing him to attack his erstwhile drinking-pal commander Berndt of German Gunboat thus placing the whole lake under the British(Nyasaland)

 

[kapongoliso]

kuliko kudai ziwa ni lao, basi wangeda hata wakazi wote wa eneo la ziwa la tanzania ni wa malawi kidogo ingeleta sense

Baada ya Nyerere kuanzisha madai juu ya mpaka wa ziwa Nyasa Kamuzu akiongea na wabunge wake tarehe 27 Juni 1967 alijibu kama ifuatavyo:
Banda continued:
I consider such a claim and such a statement as rubbing salt in the wounds inflicted on the body of Malawi by imperialism and colonialism. I say this ... because the present boundaries between Malawi and her neighbours, whether to the North or to the South, to the East or to the West, are not natural boundaries.

These wounds were inflicted on Malawi by imperialism and colonialism first at the Congress of Berlin in I 885; then by an Agreement between the British and the Germans in i890, again by an Agreement between the British and South Africa Company, controlled by Cecil Rhodes, and the African Lakes Corporation; and finally by an Agreement between the British and Portuguese in i89i.

As a result of these wounds ... we have now such districts as Mbeya, Njombe, and Songea to the north of us, such provinces as Tete, north of the Zambesi, and Zambesia or Quelimane to the south, such provinces as Vila Cabral or Nyasa to the east of us, and such districts as Isoka in part, Lundazi, Fort Jameson and Mpetanke to the west of us. . . which geographically, linguistically, and culturally belonged to Malawi and which in our forefathers' time, in our ancestors' time, were definitely Malawi but which are now outside ... our present borders. . .

As to the claim that the Lake should be divided between Malawi and another neighbouring country, I should like to say here and now that we will never recognize or accept this claim; we will never agree to the suggestion or proposal. The Lake has always belonged to Malawi.

Ntamaholo nafikiri umepata jibu la swali lako. Ukienda kwenye mawanda ya historia, sosiologia, sheria na utamaduni jambo hilo ni gumu kuliko anavyorahisisha Membe. Unajua watanzania tunajua sana kuchonga bila kuwa na solid arguments backed with solid evidence.

Hii ndo maana tunaogopa kwenda ICJ tunajua hatuna hoja. Tunataka tukusanye washikaji wetu wa SADC eti wasuluhishe kishikaji. Kama unabisha nikupe mfano mdogo tu wa kesi dhidi ya Dowans unashuhudia inavyotuendesha.

Madai ya ziwa Nyasa yalianza mwaka 1967. Hivi tunajua sababu zake au tunajifanya iko hivyo tu. Kwa nini si kabla au baadaye? Maswali mengi ya kujiuliza.

Akijibu hoja iliyokuwa ndani ya LEGCO mwaka 1960 iliyoletwa na mbunge wa Songea Chifu Ivo Mhaiki akitaka mpaka uwekwe katikati ya ziwa Waziri Mkuu J.K.Nyerere alisema:

I must emphasise again ... there is now no doubt at all about this boundary. We know that not a drop of the water of Lake Nyasa belongs to Tanganyika under the terms of the agreement, so that in actual fact we would be asking a neighbouring Government. . . to change the boundary in favour of Tanganyika.

Some people think this is easier in the case of water and it might be much more difficult in the case of land. I don't know the logic
about this. Mfupa uliomshinda fisi mbwa kibogoyo atauweza?

Hapa hakuna cha ubabe, ila ni kumpigia magoti yule mwanamke akubali watu wetu japo wawe wapata vituwi, mbelele, mbufu, hango na dagaa nyasa. La sivyo tunakosa kila kit
u.
Najua mtajidai kuingia kivita. Nakuhakikishieni hakuna wapiganaji TZ. Hapa tuna wajeshi si wapiganaji we uliona wapi mjeshi anavaa kata k, anjipulizia marashi, ana-drive badala ya kukimbia, anakunywa chai kwa maandazi?

 

[Mamndenyi]

Cdm ndo watakaokomboa huu mpaka. zaidi ni usanii tu unaendelea.

 

[Kobello]

Baada ya Nyerere kuanzisha madai juu ya mpaka wa ziwa Nyasa Kamuzu akiongea na wabunge wake tarehe 27 Juni 1967 alijibu kama ifuatavyo:
Banda continued:
I consider such a claim and such a statement as rubbing salt in the wounds
inflicted on the body of Malawi by imperialism and colonialism. I say this ... because the present boundaries between Malawi and her neighbours, whether to the North or to the South, to the East or to the West, are not natural boundaries.....

Tofauti na unavyofikiria, Nionavyo mimi, Tanzania ina points nyingi kuliko Malawi. Hakutakuwa na Judge yeyote atakayeipa Malawi 100% ya ziwa. Na hakuna atakayeipa Tanzania 100% ya ziwa.

Logically, Tanzania ana milango miwili ... kupata 50%, au less than 50%. Malawi anaweza kupata 50% au more than 50%.

Hivyo basi, Logically, diplomacy is the best and smart choice as Ban-ki-moon suggested.
Wataridhika na asilimia ngapi?.. thats Tz's stance (diplomatically).'Na lazima tuwe na minimum point.'
Malawi wana-gamble for 100%, probability of which is minimum. Kwani kuna uwezekano mkubwa wa kupata 50%, na uwezekano mdogo wa kupata zaidi ya 50%.

Concluuively, Malawi wanachemsha, wapo kimunkari zaidi na si kitaalamu zaidi. Kwa sababu, apart from losing a neighbor wanarisk kukosa more than 50% just by sitting down with Tz.

Membe hakuchemka .... naona Tz wamekaa vikzuri kwenye hili.

Ukitaka twende kwenye legality ya concept hii, Itabidi tudiscuss Burkina faso Vs Mali ..... na tuangalie lile bwawa la In Abao (kama sijakosea spelling), ambalo treat yake imelidescribe the way lake Nyasa was.

 

[Azipa]

Baada ya Nyerere kuanzisha madai juu ya mpaka wa ziwa Nyasa Kamuzu akiongea na wabunge wake tarehe 27 Juni 1967 alijibu kama ifuatavyo:
Banda continued:
I consider such a claim and such a statement as rubbing salt in the wounds
inflicted on the body of Malawi by imperialism and colonialism. I say
this ...
Akijibu hoja iliyokuwa ndani ya LEGCO mwaka 1960 iliyoletwa na mbunge wa Songea Chifu Ivo Mhaiki akitaka mpaka uwekwe katikati ya ziwa Waziri Mkuu J.K.Nyerere alisema:
I must emphasise again ... there is now no doubt at all about this boundary.
We know that not a drop of the water of Lake Nyasa belongs to Tanganyika

Mkuu, kama hii ngoma imeegamia kwa Wamalawi kama unavyoilezea, naamini Wamalawi wangekuwa very frantic about it

Dunia ya sasa ni tofauti na ya 1967. Huyohuyo Nyerere akaja kubadili msimamo alipotembelea shule fulani huko Iringa. Akawaambia wanafunzi kwamba yeye Nyerere kapata habari kwamba mpaka ulibadilishwa wakati Malawi inajiunga na shirikisho la nchi za Rhodesia. Kumbe utakuja kubaini kwamba hakuwa well informed kuhusu huo mpaka

Na kuhusu sehemu za Mbeya, Ruvuma n.k kuwa Malawa mimi nataka niulize kwa kigezo kipi? Kwasababu nimetazama ramani ya MARAVI KINGDOM nikaona haikuvuka kuingia upande wa Tanganyika. Kamuzu Banda alikuwa sahihi aliposema Msumbiji ni yake kwasababu ukitazama Maravi kingdom utaona iliifunika hadi Msumbiji lakini siyo Tanzania

Narudia, kwasasa tuna access kubwa ya habari na tunaweza kutetea mpaka wetu

Naunga mkono kutokwenda ICJ siyo kwasababu tutashindwa ila kuna uwezekano border ya Kenya ikaja kuleta utata. Upande wa border ya Malawi tuna ushahidi kwamba Uingereza na Ujerumani walikuwa wakitumia ziwa kwa pamoja. Hilo halina utata

 

[EMT]

By the looks of things the matter will ultimately be settled by ICJ. Call Membe a pragmatist if you want, like I said earlier his strategy is to first create a standoff while we're preparing necessary documents

Kwa hiyo tuna-buy time siyo eh? Delaying tactics?

The Heligoland Treaty, it is said, was only redefining spheres of influence. But when you talk about actual boundaries these ones were agreed upon at The Berlin conference. AU should recognise boundaries not spheres of influence

The Heligoland treaty redefined German East Africa sphere of influence no boundary change especially with regard to Nyasaland .And the evidence of that is

1. British colonial government letters in early 1900s before Nyasaland joined the Federation of Rhodesia, they describe Nyasaland as being situated west of Lake Nyasa

2.One of the FIRST VICTORIES OF BRITISH NAVAL BATTLES happened on Lake Nyasa. Britain and Germany used to share the lake. However, on the verge of The First World War, Commander Rhoades of Britain received a Telegram informing him to attack his erstwhile drinking-pal commander Berndt of German Gunboat thus placing the whole lake under the British(Nyasaland)

It would be fair to argue that the demarcation line of Lake Nyasa should lie in the middle of Tanzania, Mozambique and Malawi. The Berlin Conference 1984 may confirm this. However, the Heligoland Treaty 1890 left the British in Nyasaland in control of what was Tanganyika's part of the lake. When, in 1914, the British took Tanganyika over from Germany, they still placed the whole of Tanganyika's portion of the lake under the jurisdiction of Nyasaland (Malawi).

Sasa inapokuja conflict kati ya Berlin Act of the Berlin Conference 1984 na Heligoland Treaty 1890 which one would prevail? It is said that the OAU Summit affirmed Heligoland Treaty 1890 in 1963, where it was accepted reluctantly by Tanzania. One may argue that now we have information (new evidence) to the contrary, but it would depend on the documentation team mentioned by our Minister.

BTW, I thought the Berlin Conference was a conference table by the major powers of Europe to divide up Africa according to "spheres of influence?" You may ague that the Heligoland Treaty only redefined spheres of influence, and the actual boundaries were agreed upon at The Berlin conference.

But a similar agreement was signed between the British and the Portuguese making the middle of the lake their boundary with the exception of Chisamulo Island and Lokoma Island which were kept by the British and are now part of Malawi. Should we also stick with the Berlin conference because this agreement merely refined the spheres of influence between Britain and Porugal?

Narudia, kwasasa tuna access kubwa ya habari na tunaweza kutetea mpaka wetu

Would this access to information also be the same to Malawi?

Naunga mkono kutokwenda ICJ siyo kwasababu tutashindwa ila kuna uwezekano border ya Kenya ikaja kuleta utata. Upande wa border ya Malawi tuna ushahidi kwamba Uingereza na Ujerumani walikuwa wakitumia ziwa kwa pamoja. Hilo halina utata

Kama tuna ushahidi na tunataka tutatua hili tatizo "once and for all" kwa nini sasa tuogope kwenda ICJ hasa baada ya Malawi kuonyesha wazi kuwa hawako tayari kwa majadiliano? Hapo kwenye red, shhhhhhhhhh vihamba vitaanza kupanda bei huko kaskazini.

 

[ITEGAMATWI]

Right. Tanzania is entitled to appear before the ICJ since 16 December 1964. However, Tanzania has not made a declaration to recognize the compulsory the jurisdiction of the ICJ. Malawi is entitled to appear before the ICJ since 1 December 1964. Malawi also made a declaration on 12 December 1966 to recognize the compulsory the jurisdiction of the ICJ.

What is the implication for making or not making a declaration to recognise the compulsory the jurisdiction of the ICJ? A State which has recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ has in principle the right to bring any one or more other State which has accepted the same obligation before the ICJ by filing an application instituting proceedings with the ICJ, and, conversely, it has undertaken to appear before the ICJ should proceedings be instituted against it by one or more such other States.....

Where was the boundary after independence of Tanganyika and Malawi? Was it still at the coast of Tanganyika?If it was like that and one of the founders of AU was Julius Nyerere on what criterion did he relie to argue with Kamuzu Banda over the Lake Nyasa?

 

[Mtanzania]

Jamani,
Hapa sio kweli kwamba Tanzania haitaki kwenda ICJ. Tanzania inataka wafanye mazungumzo Kwa pamoja kama hata walivyoagiza AU.

Wabadilidhane documents zote na wasipoelewana basi wakubaliane nani awe msuluhishi wa kesi hii kama ni ICJ au mahali pengine.

Malawi wanakuja na kiburi cha kukiuka walichokubaliana mwanzo na wanatishia kwenda ICJ. Membe kawajibu vizuri sana. Wanajidanganya maana hawana uwezo wa kuishitaki TZ huko.
Wao ndio wanataka kuchimba mafuta, wasipotaka kujadiliana shauri yao ila mafuta pia hawatachimba.

 

[chuwaalbert]

Safi sana Waziri wa Mambo ya Nje. Haya maneno ndo tulitaka yasikia toka kwa Rais na Amri Jeshi Mkuu! Lakini ...... Hapa yeye anasubiri nini?

 

[kapongoliso]

Ni kweli lazima tu-bank on diplomacy in order to achieve a win-win situation. Diplomacy inaendana na heshima, adabu, busara, uvumilivu n.k. sio jeuri, ujuaji, vitisho na ubabe. Katika mazungumzo hatuta-capitalise on legality per se rather on cultural, historical, sociological, geographical factors to strike a balance. Ndio maana lazima tuepuke kwenda ICJ. Malawi wanalalamika (I think their complaints are solid) walikuwa-treated as novices during the Lilongwe talks. Membe alitinga pale kwa vitisho and very authoritative. Jamani Malawi is a sovereign state, we have to swallow this bitter pill it reality. Sisi tutishie CUF, CDM, Wanaharakati, Waandishi, Madaktari, wWalimu ndio saizi yetu

 

[Kibona]

Hakuna unachujua wewe , unakubaliana na huu upuuzi wa membe kuwa tanzania haiitambui ICJ Wakati Othman chande alikuwa anagombea nafasi ya ocampo akapigwa chini, pili Angalia statement para ya mwisho kuwa TZ imejipanga kwa kuwa na wana sheria makini na ati hakuna kesi imewashawishi kupelekwa ICJ kuhusu mgogoro wa maji na nchi moja ikapewa yote, hii inamaanisha kuwa wanaitambua ICJ, sijawahi kukaa nimwamini an hypocrite membe.

Usichanganye Phd; ICC na ICJ ni vitu viwili tofauti, japo vyote viko Hague. Tanzania inaitambua ICC lakini haitambui mamlaka ya ICJ

 

[kapongoliso]

Ni kweli lazima tu-bank on diplomacy in order to achieve a win-win situation. Diplomacy inaendana na heshima, adabu, busara, uvumilivu n.k. sio jeuri, ujuaji, vitisho na ubabe. Katika mazungumzo hatuta-capitalise on legality per se rather on cultural, historical, sociological, geographical factors to strike a balance. Ndio maana lazima tuepuke kwenda ICJ. Malawi wanalalamika (I think their complaints are solid) walikuwa-treated as novices during the Lilongwe talks. Membe alitinga pale kwa vitisho and very authoritative. Jamani Malawi is a sovereign state, we have to swallow this bitter pill it reality. Sisi tutishie CUF, CDM, Wanaharakati, Waandishi, Madaktari, wWalimu ndio saizi yetu

 

[kapongoliso]

Ebu nikumbusheni, ile case ya Dowans tulishindwa mahakama gani? Hutuna historia ya kuwashinda hawa wakubwa sisi waTZ. Tusijipe moyo hapa. Kwa nini yule mama amekasirika ghafla? Mimi nahisi kuna dharau tumemfanyia ndio maana kakasirika sana. Tuwe wakweli, kwa nini tunaleta unyanyasaji wa kijinsia katka masuala ya msingi. UNajua mnaweka maisha ya watu wa kusini rehani. Unanikumbusha sintofahamu tuliyokuwa tunapata pale St. Paul's Primary School 1968 wakati Banda amecharuka vibaya, tukawa tunashinda kwenye maandaki. Sipendi hali hii irudie tena. Unyenyekevu ndo unahitajika hapa ili tukubaliane kwa amani. Membe anataka kutumia suala hili kwa turufu za kisiasa, sisi Wanyasa hatuishi kwa siasa mkwe wetu Membe. Si unajua maisha yetu ni ziwa mwanetu?

 

[Aleyn]

Pole sana ndugu, kama ulikubali ushoga ili usaidiwe kumuliki ziwa lote pole. Kwani ninyi ziwa hili mlitokanalo mbinguni mpaka mdai lote lenu. Shame on you. Bwino Bwino

achana nae mgonjwa huyo

 

[mkada]

May God have mercy upon my enemies (Malawi), because I won't.​

 

[masopakyindi]

Baada ya Nyerere kuanzisha madai juu ya mpaka wa ziwa Nyasa Kamuzu akiongea na wabunge wake tarehe 27 Juni 1967 alijibu kama ifuatavyo:
Banda continued:
I consider such a claim and such a statement as rubbing salt in the wounds inflicted on the body of Malawi by imperialism and colonialism. I say this ... because the present boundaries between Malawi and her neighbours, whether to the North or to the South, to the East or to the West, are not natural boundaries.

These wounds were inflicted on Malawi by imperialism and colonialism first at the Congress of Berlin in I 885; then by an Agreement between the British and the Germans in i890, again by an Agreement between the British and South Africa Company, controlled by Cecil Rhodes, and the African Lakes Corporation; and finally by an Agreement between the British and Portuguese in i89i.

As a result of these wounds ... we have now such districts as Mbeya, Njombe, and Songea to the north of us, such provinces as Tete, north of the Zambesi, and Zambesia or Quelimane to the south, such provinces as Vila Cabral or Nyasa to the east of us, and such districts as Isoka in part, Lundazi, Fort Jameson and Mpetanke to the west of us. . . which geographically, linguistically, and culturally belonged to Malawi and which in our forefathers' time, in our ancestors' time, were definitely Malawi but which are now outside ... our present borders. . .

As to the claim that the Lake should be divided between Malawi and another neighbouring country, I should like to say here and now that we will never recognize or accept this claim; we will never agree to the suggestion or proposal. The Lake has always belonged to Malawi.

Ntamaholo nafikiri umepata jibu la swali lako. Ukienda kwenye mawanda ya historia, sosiologia, sheria na utamaduni jambo hilo ni gumu kuliko anavyorahisisha Membe. Unajua watanzania tunajua sana kuchonga bila kuwa na solid arguments backed with solid evidence.

Hii ndo maana tunaogopa kwenda ICJ tunajua hatuna hoja. Tunataka tukusanye washikaji wetu wa SADC eti wasuluhishe kishikaji. Kama unabisha nikupe mfano mdogo tu wa kesi dhidi ya Dowans unashuhudia inavyotuendesha.

Madai ya ziwa Nyasa yalianza mwaka 1967. Hivi tunajua sababu zake au tunajifanya iko hivyo tu. Kwa nini si kabla au baadaye? Maswali mengi ya kujiuliza.

Akijibu hoja iliyokuwa ndani ya LEGCO mwaka 1960 iliyoletwa na mbunge wa Songea Chifu Ivo Mhaiki akitaka mpaka uwekwe katikati ya ziwa Waziri Mkuu J.K.Nyerere alisema:

I must emphasise again ... there is now no doubt at all about this boundary. We know that not a drop of the water of Lake Nyasa belongs to Tanganyika under the terms of the agreement, so that in actual fact we would be asking a neighbouring Government. . . to change the boundary in favour of Tanganyika.

Some people think this is easier in the case of water and it might be much more difficult in the case of land. I don't know the logic
about this. Mfupa uliomshinda fisi mbwa kibogoyo atauweza?

Hapa hakuna cha ubabe, ila ni kumpigia magoti yule mwanamke akubali watu wetu japo wawe wapata vituwi, mbelele, mbufu, hango na dagaa nyasa. La sivyo tunakosa kila kit
u.
Najua mtajidai kuingia kivita. Nakuhakikishieni hakuna wapiganaji TZ. Hapa tuna wajeshi si wapiganaji we uliona wapi mjeshi anavaa kata k, anjipulizia marashi, ana-drive badala ya kukimbia, anakunywa chai kwa maandazi?

Mtoa posti hii amenunuliwa kuwa anti-Tanzania, you know your place broder, in the deepest shit hole!!

Na historical argument ya Banda is not a fact for a right thinking Tanzania to stand by.

Kwa vile alisema Banda , basi its the truth as the gospel goes?
Miaka mingi imepita , na suala halijabadilika in essence, logical solutions to logical quests.

Ukiambiwa leo nakumiliki kwa vile babu zako walikuwa watumwa wangu basi utakubali?

Banda era na Nyerere eras have gone, but the problem persists.

Kama noma na iwe noma, ziwa kipande hii nichetu mpaka centre of the lake

Membe has got to be encouraged, he has a logical if not nationalistic approach to this problem.

Mnaotaka kutawaliwa na wengine hamna nafasi nji hii.

 

[Azipa]

Kama tuna ushahidi na tunataka tutatua hili tatizo "once and for all" kwa nini sasa tuogope kwenda ICJ hasa baada ya Malawi kuonyesha wazi kuwa hawako tayari kwa majadiliano? Hapo kwenye red, shhhhhhhhhh vihamba vitaanza kupanda bei huko kaskazini.

Heligoland treaty ni ya kipuuzi hiyo ni kama mikataba ya Mangungo wa Msovero. Nadhani hiyo ndo ilitufanya hata tuogope kuwa signatory wa ICJ

Kwa upade wa ziwa Nyasa hatutashindwa. Dai la kumiliki waterbody kwa 100% ni uwendawazimu. Wasiwasi wangu tukienda ICJ na Wakenya watatest zali ya kubadili mpaka pia

Kwa ujumla Tanzania ina tatizo la mipaka kwahiyo ICJ tuiogope kama ukoma

 

[Masanja]

Mkuu acha kupotosha. ICC haiko chini ya ICJ. Wala ICC sio mahakama ndogo ya ICJ.




Kakupotosha huyo.

Most of the time, people get confused with these two courts as how they differ. They are almost the same in most cases but the only difference is their jurisdiction. Both courts are located in The Hague, Netherlands. People must know the difference of these courts for easier understanding and avoid confusion. Here are some helpful definitions to make us better understood how does these two courts differ from one another.

In brief:

1. ICC and ICJ are both tribunal courts that accommodate criminal investigations and proceedings.
2. ICC and ICJ courts are both located in The Hague, Netherlands.
3. International Court of Justice (ICJ) or the World Court is the primary judicial organ of the UN which settles legal disputes submitted by states while ICC is legally and functionally independent from the United Nations (UN).
4. If the country you belong is part of the UN you can go directly to ICJ and if you are not go to ICC for further proceedings (hapa ndipo Membe alipojaribu ku-confuse watu).
5. International Criminal Court (ICC) is called to be a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression while ICJ settles legal disputes submitted by states and ICJ also gives advisory and opinions on legal questions forwarded by duly authorized international organs, agencies and the UN General Assembly.

Read more: Difference Between ICC and ICJ | Difference Between

Wandugu naombeni tuwe makini sana na information tunazotoa humu ndani. JF ni darsa hivyo ni vema tukatoa information relevant kwa manufaa ya wasiojua. With due respect naona mwandishi huyu naye kachanganya. Hebu ngoja nitoe darasa kwa manufaa ya watanzania wote.

ICJ au international Court of Justice ni mahakama ambayo ni sehemu ya UN. Makao makuu yake yako The Hague-Netherlands. Hii mahakama kazi yake ni kutatua migogoro baina ya nchi na nchi. Haihusiki na individuals kabisa. Ila sasa ikitokea serikali ya nchi husika ikaenda kushtaki kwenye hii mahakama kwa niaba ya raia wake then inawezekana ICJ ikasikiliza hili shauri. Mfano: Mfanya biashara wa Kenya yuko Tanzania na amedhulumiwa haki yake (mali zake), Kenya na Tanzania kwa pamoja wanaweza kuamua kulipeleka hili shauri ICJ kama limeshindikana kutatuliwa ndani ya nchi husika. Ingawa yule mfanya biashara aliyeathirika hatakuwa na role yoyote mbele ya ICJ na wala haitamtambua kisheria. Ila kama kuna compensation zitapatikana basi huyo raia atakabidhiwa. Mfano mzuri ni kesi ya juzi ambapo Guinea iliishtaki DR Congo pale ambapo raia wake Ahmed Said Diallo alidhulumiwa haki zake kule Congo. Baadaye Congo na Guinea wakaamua kupeleka huu mgogoro ICJ. Hukumu imetoka juzi na bwana Diallo alilipwa gharama za madhara aliyoyapata (Ingawa Guinea ndo alilipwa kwa niaba ya Diallo-maana ICJ HAITAMBUI NA WALA HAISHUGHULIKI NA WATU BINAFSI).

Sasa je, Malawi anaweza kuishtaki Tanzania ICJ? technically, Malawi na Tanznia sote ni wanachama wa ICJ kwa vile wote tu wanachama wa UN. Lakini mpaka ICJ iweze kutatua mgogoro baina ya nchi na nchi ni lazima nchi husika kwenye mgogoro zikubali ICJ kuwa msuluhisi. Na kuna kitu kinaitwa compulsory jurisdiction. kama Tanzania tungekuwa tumekubali compulsory jurisdiction ya mahakama hii ya ICJ basi Malawi angekwenda ICJ kuishtaki Tanzania. Kwa Tanzania kwenda ICJ ni lazima tukubali kwanza kwamba ICJ awe msuluhishi wa mgogoro wowote unaotuhusu iwe Kenya, Malawi au nchi nyingine. Na kwa hili naona Tanzania hatujaridhia. By the way si Tanzania tuu hata US hawajakubali compulsory jurisdiction ya ICJ. Kwa hiyo nchi yoyote kuishtaki US ICJ ni lazima US waridhie kwamba ICJ atakuwa msuluhishi kwenye mgogoro husika.

Sasa hii ina maana gani? ina maana kwamba Tanzania iliamua kupeleka migogoro ICJ on a case by case basis. Kwa hiyo tunaweza kuamua kwamba mgogoro wa Malawi tuupeleke ICJ au tusiupeleke. Ila Malawi ingawa alishakubali hii compulsory jurisdiction, hawezi kupeleka hii kesi ICJ kama Tanzania hatujaamua kukubali ICJ awe msuluhishi. Na hapa ndo Malawi wanakosea maana sijui kama hili walilitafiti kabla ya kuropoka kwenye vyombo vya habari na kujitoa kwenye mazungumzo na Tanzania.

Je uamuzi wa Membe ni sahihi? Kitaalam Membe yuko Sahihi. Ni lazima Malawi akae chini na Tanzania in a friendly atmosphere wakubaliane msuluhishi awe nani. Mfano wanaweza kutafuta Arbitrator ambapo wote Tanzania na Malawi watakubali kuheshimu uamuzi wa Arbitrator kama final and binding. Hii njia ni nzuri ingawa ina hasara zake (nchi inaweza kukataa uamuzi wa arbitrator). (Ethiopia na Eritrea walitumia njia hii kutatua mgogoro wao wa mpaka wa Badme ingawa Ethiopia baadaye alikataa kuheshimu uamuzi (na ndo chanzo na muendelezo wa mgogoro kati ya Ethiopia na Eritrea mpaka leo).

Membe ametoa wazo la viongozi wastaafu wa SADC kutatua mgogoro huu. Hapa napo naona Membe yupo sahihi kama kweli Tanzania na Malawi wako tayari kudeal na tatizo hili. (hii njia ilitumiwa mwanzoni na Namibia na Botswana kwenye mgogoro wa mpaka wao (Kasikili/Sedudu). Ingawa mwishoni waliamua kwenda ICJ..huu mgogogo ulianza kusuluhishwa chini ya Mugabe na wenzake. And to me hawa wazee walisaidia sana. Same kwa mgogoro wa Nigeria na Cameroon kwenye mpaka wa Bakassi Peninsula. Ingawa mwishoni uliishia ICJ, upatanishi wa mwanzo ulisaidia sana kwenye confidence building na kuhakikisha kwamba hata pale mmoja akishindwa..undugu na urafiki wa wananchi kwenye maeneo husika unaendelea.

Kuhusu OAU? Yes, OAU na sasa AU wana department ya kusuluhisha migogoro ya mipaka baina ya nchi za kiafrika ila hii department imekaa dormant kwa mda mrefu. Ingawa Tanzania na Malawi wakiamua it can work-its simply a matter of political will.

Ipi njia sahihi sasa ya kutatua huu mgogoro kati ya malawi na Tanzania? Hapa ni dhahiri lazima Malawi aache utoto arudi kwenye meza na Tanzania. ICJ kwa sasa inaonekana is not in our cards (its very expensive and time consuming). Na hapa utahitaji kuajiri wanasheria wa kimataifa waliobobea akina (Phillip Sanders, Allain Pellet nk) hawa wazee wanakula pesa kuliko hata TANESCO! Kwa hiyo ICJ watu wasifikiri ni sehemu ya mzaha mzaha, it needs some serious homework by well accomplished international lawyers. And what I see kwenye ofisi za serikali yetu tuna wanasheria wachache sana wakuweza ku-argue case ICJ. I am sorry to be too honest here.

Na kwangu mimi ningeshauri hili swali tulitatue kwa misingi ya kirafiki na kidugu. Maana lazima tukumbuke kwamba irrespective ya maamuzi yatakayotolewa na chombo chochote..jamii husika around this lake wataendelea kuishi wote na kutegemea ziwa Nyasa.
Hili linawezekana kama tukiaminiana tangu mwanzo kati ya Tanzania na Malawi.

Vipi kuhusu Mahakama ya ICC (International Crimina Court?) Hii mahakama haina uhusiano wowote na ICJ ingawa nayo iko The Hague. Vile vile haina uhusiano wa kimadaraka na UN. wana mkataba wa ushirikiano kama independent institutions. ICC INAHUSIKA NA WATU BINAFSI WANAOFANYA UHALIFU WA MAKOSA YA KIVITA. ICC haina mda na wala haijishughulishi na migogoro baina ya nchi na nchi. (na hii ndo mahakama Othman Chande alikuwa ameomba kazi kumrithi Ocampo). ICC imeanzishwa kwa mkataba maalum uliosaiwa Roma Italy mwaka 1998. Ndo maana ICC mara nyingine inaitwa Rome Statute. Imeanza kazi rasmi July 2002 baada ya nchi 60 kusaini uanzishwaji wake. Tanzania ni member wa hii Mahakama. Na kama mnakumbuka hii ndo mahakama ambayo inachukiwa na Marekani kupindukia. Ingawa inapendwa na Western Europe ambao ndo wanaisupport. Hivyo basi ICC inadeal na individuals na haichagui na wala haiangalii rangi wala cheo cha mtu ndo maana Al Bashir wa Sudan, Uhuru Kenyata, Ruto nk wameshtakiwa na hii mahakama. Jukumu la kukamata wahalifu na kuwapeleka The Hague kwenye mashataka ni la nchi husika. Ingawa hili nalo lina ugumu wake..ila haijalishi wewe ni raisi au waziri. ukishakuwa charged--sijui utatembelea anga gani. Mfano mtu kama Bashir anajua fika leo hawezi tena hata kwenda ulaya au US au hata baadhi ya nchi za kiafrika maana atakamatwa.

Kigezo kikubwa cha kushtakiwa ICC ni:

1)uwe unatuhumiwa kufanya makosa ya uhalifu wa kivita kama genocide, war crimes or crime against humanity. na hivi karibuni ICC itaanza kushtaki watu kwa makosa ya agression (kuanzisha vita dhidi ya nchi ningine bila kufuata misingi na sheria za kimataifa (hapa ndo Bush na Blair wanaingia). Ndo maana US wanaipinga hii mahakama maana ina limit maamuzi yao kuzichapa nchi ambazo wanaona zinahatarisha usalama wao.

Kitu cha msingi kukumbuka ni kwamba ICC inafungua mashtaka pale nchi husika inaposhindwa kumshtaki mtuhumiwa au kuhakikisha maamuzi ya mahakama yanaheshimiwa. In fact hiki ndo kigezo kilitumika kuwashtaki Bashir, Bemba (makamu wa Rais wa DRC), Uhuru na Ruto maana ilionekana nchi husika kama Sudan, Congo na Kenya hazikuwa tayari kuwashtaki hawa jamaa kwa kiwango cha kimataifa kwenye mahakama ya nchi husika. Kwa hiyo hata ingekuwa Tanzania mfano: Kama kiongozi mkubwa anatuhumiwa kwa makosa niliyoyataja hapo juu, ICC inaweza mfungulia mashataka kama inaona Tanzania wanashindwa kutoa haki stahiki kwa kiwango cha kimataifa.

Na kitu kingine: ICC inadeal na Samaki PAPA. Haijishughulishi na watuhumiwa wadogo wadogo. mara nyingi ni viongozi wa serikali, wakuu wa majeshi...people in places of influence in general.

Kwa sasa kuna juhudi kubwa sana za wanaharakati kuhakikisha makosa ya ugaidi na mega-corruption yanaingizwa kwenye idadi ya makosa ICC inayoweza kudeal nayo. Na kwa hili likifanikiwa ni dhahiri kwamba viongozi wengi wataumia especially kwenye nchi maskini ambapo mahakama ni vyombo vya watawala visivyoheshimiwa.

NB: Ingawa Tanzania ni mwanachama wa ICC, hatujawahi kuwa na Jaji ICC. Vile vile hatujawahi kuwa na Jaji ICJ.

Samahani kwa maandishi mengi lakini nilitaka kufafanua kuhusu hivi vyombo viwili ambavyo vyote ni muhimu.

Masanja

 

[Mkali Tozz]

Wamalawi nao wanafanya hivyo hivyo mkuu, juzi tu tumesikia wamepata vielelezo toka Uingereza. Halafu ukivisoma vielelezo vyenyewe, ambavyo ilikuwa ni reports za colonial master wao, utakuta vyote vinatupa ushindi

Cha msingi hapa tuipe serikali ushirikiano kwa kuipa taarifa/vielelezo zaidi vinavyoweza kutupa ushindi wa kishindo

Hii ishu ya mpaka ziwani ni kubwa mno, serikali waipe uzito unaostahili, wasije wakazani ni kama wanadili na CDM useme watafojifoji kama walivyozoea kuwafanyia CDM. Tanzanians, we real need very constructive argument and impeccable evidence for outwitting this little nation, I real doubt about Kikwete's smile on this serious matter