Opinions as to why Presidents Jakaya Kikwete shouldnt be accused of breaking the Election Expenses Act by announcing the status of the decision of the Government to increase the salaries of its workers. These are just someones opinions; it shouldnt be taken as the ultimate. PART VPROHIBITED PRACTICESUnfair conducts 21.-(1) during the nomination process, election campaign or election, an act of prohibited practice shall be committed by-(a)every person who, before or during the campaigns period, directly or indirectly, by any other person on his behalf gives ,lends or agrees to give or to lend, or offers, promises, or promises to procure or to endeavor to procure, any money or valuable consideration to or for any voter or to or for any person on behalf of any voter or to or to refrain from voting, or corruptly does any such act, on account of such voter having voted or refrained from voting at any nomination process or election;The section of the law is overt: Every person, voter-The government is neither a person nor a voter. During nomination, election campaigns-In any way The Government doesnt seek for nomination, that act is exercised by party members in their parties. In order to induce any voter to vote or to refrain from voting- The Government has a constitutional responsibility to pay salaries to its employees/workers and increase/decrease them whenever possible/affordable (by so doing The Government doesnt seek to induce any voter to vote or refrain from voting because it is their rights, neither any worker has no right to claim for salary increment in order to vote or refrain from voting; (as according to the Trade Union law). Or corruptly does any such act- By paying/giving/increasing salaries to its workers/employees, The Government exercises its constitutional responsibility hence it can never be considered as a corrupt act. Any money or valuable consideration- HE. Jakaya Kikwete as a Presidential candidate has not been accused to being caught giving money to any person inducing him/her to vote for him or for his party, rather (and mostly as the Head of Government; it is very difficult to distinguish the two titles in campaign elections)has been explaining the matters raised by the people to his Government, normally the matters which affects their daily lives including the issues of low/inadequate salaries, building of hospitals, construction of roads, bridges etc, which he has been explaining and announcing the statuses of each. This is his obligation as the Head of Government. By this law/this section of the act, basing on the actuality that the Government is not a person or voter, then The Government has not been prohibited to discuss/agree/disagree/sign/announce/explain any matters or even praise itself for its act of doing something beneficial to citizens/country (including increment of salaries to its workers), rather The Government is obliged to continue to practice its day to day constitutional responsibilities regardless it is doing so in election year/period or not. Addition: The President as Head of Government has moral and constitutional obligation to explain to the citizens the acts of the Government including provision of answers to their questions/claims all the time during the period of his/her presidency. In any phrase of this section the law doesnt prohibit or set the time limit for the Head of Government to do so.