Pinda kushitakiwa kwa kauli zake tata "wapigwe"
- Thread starter Marire
- Start date
keizerjohn
Senior Member
- May 12, 2013
- 113
- 13
Ashtakiwe tu, Na apigwe tu, liwalo na liwe tumemchoka!
Parliamentary immunity in Tanzania
Swali Kuu je, kauli ya 'wapigwe tu maana tumechoka ya Mh. Waziri Mkuu , Mizengo Kayanda Peter Pinda ilikuwa inalenga kumsaidia yeye kikazi kulinda haki za watanzania au inapelekea kupinda na kudhuru haki za watanzania kikatiba? Na kama kauli hiyo ya Mh. Mizengo Kayanda Peter Pinda inakiuka katiba ya nchi , jibu ni ndiyo maana wameshahukumiwa wananchi bila kupelekwa Mahakamani kwa kupewa kipigo cha papo kwa hapo.
KATUMBACHAKO
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 3, 2012
- 399
- 108
liwalo na liwe! HAKUNA JINSI, ASHITAKIWE TU ... MAANA TUMECHOKA!
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE IN TANZANIA
[/FONT]As has already been mentioned in the Introduction, parliamentary
powers, privileges and immunities in Tanzania are provided for in The
Parliamentary immunities, Powers and Privileges Act, 1988 (no. 3 of
1988). They are the following:
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]2.1 THE SPECIFIC PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
2.1.1 Freedom of speech and debate in the House
[/FONT]Section 3 of the Act states as follows:
''There shall be freedom of speech and debate in the
Assembly and such freedom of speech and debate shall
not be liable to be questioned in any court or place
outside the Assembly''
The privilege of freedom of speech, though of a personal nature, is not
so much intended to protect the members from prosecution for their
own individual advantage, but rather to support the rights of the people
by enabling their representatives to carry out their duties inside
parliament, (e.g. denouncing abuses of authority) without fear of either
civil or criminal prosecutions.
It has been said that freedom of speech as set out in Article 9 of the
English [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Bill of Rights, [/FONT]1689 was intended to protect members of
parliament from possible deprivation by the other Branches of the
government, i.e. the Crown or the Executive, or indeed the Courts of
law. In the English case of R. v Murphy (1985) 64 A.L.R 498; it was
stated as follows:
''What is meant by the declaration in Article 9 is that no court
proceedings having legal consequences against a member of parliament
[PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE IN TANZANIA]
[ Page 6 ]
are permitted which have the effect of preventing his exercising free
speech in parliament, or of punishing him for having done so. In other
words, the phrase ''shall not be impeached or questioned in any court
or place out of parliament'' in Article 9 should be interpreted in the
sense that the exercise of the freedom of speech given to members of
parliament may not be challenged by way of court process having legal
consequences for such persons because they had exercised that
freedom,'' It has also been authoritatively established that Article 9 of
the Bill of Rights, 1689 only prohibits the questioning of the proceedings
of parliament in any place outside parliament. But those participating
in its proceedings, principally the members of parliament themselves
but also any witnesses, petitioners and others, are still subject to the
disciplinary powers of the House for their conduct during the
proceedings. In the English cases of Burdett v Abbot (1811) 3 E.R. 1289)
and Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 112 E.R. 1112 it was emphasized
that ''the jurisdiction of the Houses over their own members, and their
right to impose discipline within their walls, is absolute and exclusive.''
However, it must be made clear, for the avoidance of any doubt, that a
member of parliament is not protected by parliamentary privilege
outside the House of parliament itself. For example, if an M.P. repeats
outside parliament what he said inside the House, he will not be able
to rely on parliamentary privilege to protect him, should he for instance
be prosecuted in a court of law for libel or for slander. In the English
case of R. v (Lord) Abingdon (1794) 170 E.R.337; Lord Abingdon
was convicted in a criminal court for publishing a criminal libel which
he had uttered within the protection of the House.
What constitutes a proceeding in parliament
As a technical parliamentary term, ''proceedings'' have been defined
as:
''All the events and the steps leading up to some formal
action by parliament, including a decision taken by
the House in its collective capacity. All of these steps
and events, the whole process by which the House
reaches a decision, are proceedings of the House.''
[ PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE IN TANZANIA ]
[ page 7 ]
Further clarification is given in Erskine May's [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Parliamentary[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Practice [/FONT]as follows:
''An individual member takes part in a proceeding
usually by speech, but also by various recognized kinds
of formal action, such as voting, asking questions,
giving notice of a motion, etc, or presenting a petition
or a report from a committee. Strangers can also take
part in the proceedings of the House, e.g. by giving
evidence before it or before one of its committees''
It is to be noted that in order for this privilege to apply to a member, he
must be actually exercising his functions as such a member either in a
committee or in the House itself, in the transaction of parliamentary
business. Whatever he says or does in those circumstances is regarded
as having been said or done during ''a proceeding of parliament". In
other words the privilege applies only when an M.P. is actually
participating in parliamentary business as defined above, i.e. asking a
question, or contributing to a debate etc; but not when he is just in the
lobby or in his constituency. In [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]R v Bunting ( 1885) 7 OR 524 [/FONT]it was
stated as follows:
''given the anxiety of the House to confine its own or
its members' privileges to the minimum infringement
of the liberties of others, it is important to see that
those privileges do not cover activities that are not
squarely within a member's true function.''
This has been interpreted to mean that acts of a member in his official
capacity may extend beyond parliamentary work, in which case they
will receive no protection. That the ''official capacity'' of a member of
parliament is a capacity beyond what the member does or says during
the course of a parliamentary proceeding is illustrated in the following
Canadian case:- [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]R v Bruneau (1964) 1 c.c.c.97 Ontario Court of[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Appeal
[/FONT]Bruneau was a member of the Canadian House of Commons in 1956.
He had accepted money for assisting a constituent to have the Federal
government buy some property which the said constituent owned.
[ PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE IN TANZANIA ]
[ Page 8 ]
Bruneau was convicted of corruption while acting in his official
capacity, because the functions of a member in his official capacity
include assisting his constituents.
It is also to be noted that not everything which is said or done in the
House or committee is protected by the term ''proceeding in
parliament'' In order to be protected, the act or word must be done or
said in connection with the proceeding concerned. For example, in
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Coffin v Coffin (1808) 4 Mass. 1, [/FONT]it was held that defamatory statements
made by one member to another in the course of a private conversation
in the House are not protected by the absolute privilege that attaches
to proceedings in parliament.
2.1.2 [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Immunity from legal proceedings[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold][/FONT]Section 5 of Act no. 3 of 1988 provides as follows:-
''No civil or criminal proceeding may be instituted
against any member for words spoken before the
Assembly or any of its Committees, or by reason of
any matter or thing brought by him therein by petition,
bill or motion or otherwise, or for words spoken or act
done bona fide in pursuance of a decision or
proceeding of the Assembly or a committee.''
This provision merely reinforces the protection accorded by the
previous section, namely freedom of speech and debate in the Assembly,
its practical application may be seen from [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Strode's case (1512), 4[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][/FONT]Henry 8. In 1512, Richard Strode, a member of the British House of
Common, was prosecuted in court for having proposed certain Bills to
regulate the tinners in Cornwall. He was subsequently imprisoned. His
prosecution resulted in a special Act of parliament being passed, cited
as [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]An Act Respecting Richard Strode, which [/FONT]enacted the following:
''All suits and other proceedings against Strode and
every other member of the present parliament or of
any parliament thereafter, for the introduction of any
Bill, speaking or declaring any matter concerning the
[PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE IN TANZANIA]
parliament to be communed and treated of, shall be
utterly void and of no effect.''
There is another relevant judgment in Canada which also sheds light
on the courts' general response to this parliamentary immunity. In
dealing with statements made in the Canadian House of Commons in
the case of [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Roman Corp v Hudson's Bay Oil & Gas Company, (1973)-[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][/FONT]Houlden J stated as follows:-
''The court has no power to inquire into what
statements were made in parliament, why they were
made, who made them, what was the motive for
making them, or anything about themO.It seems to be
well established that no person can have a judgment
awarded against him in civil proceedings arising out
of a speech made in the House of Commons.''
That the courts will not inquire into the question of motive behind a
parliamentary proceeding is confirmed by the decision of the Cook
Islands Court of Appeal in the case Source: http://www.parliament.go.tz/docs/ParliaPrivillege.pdf
[/FONT]As has already been mentioned in the Introduction, parliamentary
powers, privileges and immunities in Tanzania are provided for in The
Parliamentary immunities, Powers and Privileges Act, 1988 (no. 3 of
1988). They are the following:
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]2.1 THE SPECIFIC PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
2.1.1 Freedom of speech and debate in the House
[/FONT]Section 3 of the Act states as follows:
''There shall be freedom of speech and debate in the
Assembly and such freedom of speech and debate shall
not be liable to be questioned in any court or place
outside the Assembly''
The privilege of freedom of speech, though of a personal nature, is not
so much intended to protect the members from prosecution for their
own individual advantage, but rather to support the rights of the people
by enabling their representatives to carry out their duties inside
parliament, (e.g. denouncing abuses of authority) without fear of either
civil or criminal prosecutions.
It has been said that freedom of speech as set out in Article 9 of the
English [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Bill of Rights, [/FONT]1689 was intended to protect members of
parliament from possible deprivation by the other Branches of the
government, i.e. the Crown or the Executive, or indeed the Courts of
law. In the English case of R. v Murphy (1985) 64 A.L.R 498; it was
stated as follows:
''What is meant by the declaration in Article 9 is that no court
proceedings having legal consequences against a member of parliament
[PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE IN TANZANIA]
[ Page 6 ]
are permitted which have the effect of preventing his exercising free
speech in parliament, or of punishing him for having done so. In other
words, the phrase ''shall not be impeached or questioned in any court
or place out of parliament'' in Article 9 should be interpreted in the
sense that the exercise of the freedom of speech given to members of
parliament may not be challenged by way of court process having legal
consequences for such persons because they had exercised that
freedom,'' It has also been authoritatively established that Article 9 of
the Bill of Rights, 1689 only prohibits the questioning of the proceedings
of parliament in any place outside parliament. But those participating
in its proceedings, principally the members of parliament themselves
but also any witnesses, petitioners and others, are still subject to the
disciplinary powers of the House for their conduct during the
proceedings. In the English cases of Burdett v Abbot (1811) 3 E.R. 1289)
and Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 112 E.R. 1112 it was emphasized
that ''the jurisdiction of the Houses over their own members, and their
right to impose discipline within their walls, is absolute and exclusive.''
However, it must be made clear, for the avoidance of any doubt, that a
member of parliament is not protected by parliamentary privilege
outside the House of parliament itself. For example, if an M.P. repeats
outside parliament what he said inside the House, he will not be able
to rely on parliamentary privilege to protect him, should he for instance
be prosecuted in a court of law for libel or for slander. In the English
case of R. v (Lord) Abingdon (1794) 170 E.R.337; Lord Abingdon
was convicted in a criminal court for publishing a criminal libel which
he had uttered within the protection of the House.
What constitutes a proceeding in parliament
As a technical parliamentary term, ''proceedings'' have been defined
as:
''All the events and the steps leading up to some formal
action by parliament, including a decision taken by
the House in its collective capacity. All of these steps
and events, the whole process by which the House
reaches a decision, are proceedings of the House.''
[ PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE IN TANZANIA ]
[ page 7 ]
Further clarification is given in Erskine May's [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Parliamentary[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Practice [/FONT]as follows:
''An individual member takes part in a proceeding
usually by speech, but also by various recognized kinds
of formal action, such as voting, asking questions,
giving notice of a motion, etc, or presenting a petition
or a report from a committee. Strangers can also take
part in the proceedings of the House, e.g. by giving
evidence before it or before one of its committees''
It is to be noted that in order for this privilege to apply to a member, he
must be actually exercising his functions as such a member either in a
committee or in the House itself, in the transaction of parliamentary
business. Whatever he says or does in those circumstances is regarded
as having been said or done during ''a proceeding of parliament". In
other words the privilege applies only when an M.P. is actually
participating in parliamentary business as defined above, i.e. asking a
question, or contributing to a debate etc; but not when he is just in the
lobby or in his constituency. In [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]R v Bunting ( 1885) 7 OR 524 [/FONT]it was
stated as follows:
''given the anxiety of the House to confine its own or
its members' privileges to the minimum infringement
of the liberties of others, it is important to see that
those privileges do not cover activities that are not
squarely within a member's true function.''
This has been interpreted to mean that acts of a member in his official
capacity may extend beyond parliamentary work, in which case they
will receive no protection. That the ''official capacity'' of a member of
parliament is a capacity beyond what the member does or says during
the course of a parliamentary proceeding is illustrated in the following
Canadian case:- [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]R v Bruneau (1964) 1 c.c.c.97 Ontario Court of[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Appeal
[/FONT]Bruneau was a member of the Canadian House of Commons in 1956.
He had accepted money for assisting a constituent to have the Federal
government buy some property which the said constituent owned.
[ PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE IN TANZANIA ]
[ Page 8 ]
Bruneau was convicted of corruption while acting in his official
capacity, because the functions of a member in his official capacity
include assisting his constituents.
It is also to be noted that not everything which is said or done in the
House or committee is protected by the term ''proceeding in
parliament'' In order to be protected, the act or word must be done or
said in connection with the proceeding concerned. For example, in
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Coffin v Coffin (1808) 4 Mass. 1, [/FONT]it was held that defamatory statements
made by one member to another in the course of a private conversation
in the House are not protected by the absolute privilege that attaches
to proceedings in parliament.
2.1.2 [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Immunity from legal proceedings[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold][/FONT]Section 5 of Act no. 3 of 1988 provides as follows:-
''No civil or criminal proceeding may be instituted
against any member for words spoken before the
Assembly or any of its Committees, or by reason of
any matter or thing brought by him therein by petition,
bill or motion or otherwise, or for words spoken or act
done bona fide in pursuance of a decision or
proceeding of the Assembly or a committee.''
This provision merely reinforces the protection accorded by the
previous section, namely freedom of speech and debate in the Assembly,
its practical application may be seen from [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Strode's case (1512), 4[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][/FONT]Henry 8. In 1512, Richard Strode, a member of the British House of
Common, was prosecuted in court for having proposed certain Bills to
regulate the tinners in Cornwall. He was subsequently imprisoned. His
prosecution resulted in a special Act of parliament being passed, cited
as [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]An Act Respecting Richard Strode, which [/FONT]enacted the following:
''All suits and other proceedings against Strode and
every other member of the present parliament or of
any parliament thereafter, for the introduction of any
Bill, speaking or declaring any matter concerning the
[PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE IN TANZANIA]
parliament to be communed and treated of, shall be
utterly void and of no effect.''
There is another relevant judgment in Canada which also sheds light
on the courts' general response to this parliamentary immunity. In
dealing with statements made in the Canadian House of Commons in
the case of [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Roman Corp v Hudson's Bay Oil & Gas Company, (1973)-[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][/FONT]Houlden J stated as follows:-
''The court has no power to inquire into what
statements were made in parliament, why they were
made, who made them, what was the motive for
making them, or anything about themO.It seems to be
well established that no person can have a judgment
awarded against him in civil proceedings arising out
of a speech made in the House of Commons.''
That the courts will not inquire into the question of motive behind a
parliamentary proceeding is confirmed by the decision of the Cook
Islands Court of Appeal in the case Source: http://www.parliament.go.tz/docs/ParliaPrivillege.pdf
TAIFAKWANZA
Senior Member
- Apr 20, 2013
- 160
- 61
Liwalo na liwe ashitakiwe na afungwe maana amepinda kupindukia.Tumechoka.
Jimmy Santadio
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 16, 2013
- 466
- 133
hii sheria ya immunity bungeni ipo katika bunge la uingereza pia. nilikuwa sijui kama na bongo pia ipo. Kama ni hiyo basi wale wanaotaka kutwaa nchi kwa mchupa wa tindikali wapigwe tuu. liwalo na liwe, kwa maana tumechoka sasa.
Daudi Mchambuzi
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 25, 2010
- 62,204
- 128,025
muuaji mkubwa huyu.
Mzito Kabwela
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 28, 2009
- 18,857
- 7,618
Unamshtakije Mbunge kwa kauli aliyotoa Bungeni?
Lizaboni
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 21, 2013
- 33,894
- 20,372
Huko ni kudilisika kimawazo. Huyu Pinda si ndiye mliyekuwa mnamwita mpole mdhaifu. Halafu kumbukeni kuwa kauli ile katoa ndani ya ukumbi wa Bunge ambao una kinga kisheria. Vinginevyo waache wauze tu sura na wao wajipatie kipato
Lizaboni
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 21, 2013
- 33,894
- 20,372
Mkuu, acha kujitia upofu. Kuna taratibu za kumshitaki waziri mkuu na si kila mhuni anaweza kufanya hivyo.HAWA LHRC warudi wakasome upya
Mzito Kabwela
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 28, 2009
- 18,857
- 7,618
Mabadiliko ya katiba ni muhimu. Kwa Likatiba la sasa Pinda hakamatiki, hashtakiwi. Labda mahakama za Gachacha
hawa wanataka tu kuuza sura, hawana lolote,
Lizaboni
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 21, 2013
- 33,894
- 20,372
Wakuu, hawa LHRC sijui hata kama hiyo katiba na sheria za nchi wamezisoma na kuzielewa. Au ndo kujitafutia kipato kwa wafadhili kwa njia ya hadaa. Usikute hapo wamepewa mamilioni ya fedha kwa kumshitaki waziri mkuu
Similar Discussions
-
-
Wanachama wa CCM Itumbi waipokea kwa shangwe kauli ya Waziri Mkuu Majaliwa. Sasa tume ya madini ifute PL/ 6973/2011 haraka- Started by peno hasegawa
- Replies: 1
-
Mbunge ataka Bunge lisitishe shughuli zake kujadili vurugu, watu kupigwa risasi- Started by BARD AI
- Replies: 16
-
Ridhiwani Kikwete: Serikali italinda Vijana wapate ajira kwa vigezo vya taaluma na si uzoefu kazini
- Started by BWANKU M BWANKU
- Replies: 14
-
Nape Nnauye: Dkt. Slaa, Mdude na Wakili Mwabukusi wamekamatwa kwa kauli za Kutaka Serikali Ipinduliwe
- Started by BARD AI
- Replies: 32