Dismiss Notice
You are browsing this site as a guest. It takes 2 minutes to CREATE AN ACCOUNT and less than 1 minute to LOGIN

VIFUNGU VYA SHERIA MALAWI KUSIMAMIA 10th of September, HIVI HAPA

Discussion in 'Jukwaa la Sheria (The Law Forum)' started by R.B, Sep 2, 2012.

  1. R.B

    R.B JF-Expert Member

    #1
    Sep 2, 2012
    Joined: May 10, 2012
    Messages: 5,506
    Likes Received: 605
    Trophy Points: 280
    icj.png

    http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php

    "Our findings are that Tanzania didn't ratify the ICJ treaty''.

    "We will look at that when we meet again in Tanzania on 10th of September."

    Checks on UN website on Sunday found that Tanzania does not appear among about 80 States which gave compulsory jurisdiction to the UN court to decide on some specific matters. Malawi declared compulsory jurisdiction to ICJ on November 22 1966.


    "States which have made declarations under Article 36, paragraph 2 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice or whose declarations made under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice are deemed to be acceptances of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice,"
    reads the UN web page.
    Article 36 (2) of the ICJ Statute reads: "The State parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognise as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other State accepting the same obligation,

    the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning:

    (a) the interpretation of a treaty;
    (b) any question of international law;
    (c) the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation;
    (d) the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation."


    While Malawi says the 1890 Heligoland Treaty between Britain and Germany gave it the whole lake, Tanzania argues it owns half of it because common international law stipulates that water bodies separating countries must be shared equally.


    Chancellor College international law expert Dr. Mwiza Nkhata on Sunday said Tanzania's standing on the jurisdiction of ICJ means that the court cannot automatically intervene to help resolve the border dispute.
    Said Nkhata: "The implication is that ICJ does not have automatic jurisdiction on the matter. Tanzania may first of all have to make that specific declaration accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the court.
    "You need both parties to the case to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the court and not one country."
    Chancellor College associate professor of law Edge Kanyongolo said he needed more time to look at various international law instruments before commenting on the matter, but said in the past,
    there have been some cases where other parties to disputes between countries have rejected rulings of ICJ because of jurisdiction issues.
    Although Malawi and Tanzania have different standings on ICJ's jurisdiction, both countries are still parties to the Court's Statute, according to the 1945 UN Charter whose Article 93 (1) reads: "All members of the United Nations are ipso facto parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice."
    Principal Secretary for Foreign Affairs Patrick Kabambe on Sunday said Malawi and Tanzania could either make a joint submission to the court on the dispute or each of the countries could make their own submissions.
     
  2. ITEGAMATWI

    ITEGAMATWI JF-Expert Member

    #2
    Sep 2, 2012
    Joined: Jan 26, 2012
    Messages: 3,849
    Likes Received: 537
    Trophy Points: 280
    Mkuu hapo kwenye heading unamaanisha VIFUNGU eenh?
     
  3. Buchanan

    Buchanan JF Diamond Member

    #3
    Sep 2, 2012
    Joined: May 19, 2009
    Messages: 13,088
    Likes Received: 236
    Trophy Points: 160
    Imerekebishwa!
     
  4. r

    rodrick alexander JF-Expert Member

    #4
    Sep 2, 2012
    Joined: Feb 12, 2012
    Messages: 3,308
    Likes Received: 764
    Trophy Points: 280
    Aliyekuwa Rais wa kwanza wa Tanzania alikuwa makini kuingia katika mikataba ya kimataifa kwani alijua vyombo na mamlaka hizo zimeanzishwa makusudi kulinda masilahi ya wakolonihakusaini hata mkataba unaozuia nchi kutengeneza silaha za nyukilia kwa sababu lkama nchi nyingine zinatengeneza kwanini sisi tusiruhusiwe na kama tungeendelea na msimamo huohuo leo hii tusingehangaika na kesi za Dowans swala la mpaka wetu na Malawi linahusu nchi hizi mbili na liko ndani ya uwezo wetu ila limekuwa gumu kutokana na uchochezi wa mataifa na makampuni ya nje ambayo yanaangalia namna gani yanaweza kunufaika na rasilimali hizo na wala haina haja ya kwenda huko kote ni kuingia gharama zisizo na msingi na fedha hizo tukatumia kwa matumizi mengine yenye manufaa kwa wananchi wetutumekuwa ombaomba lakini kila siku tumekuwa tunapeleka pesa ulaya kwa njia kama hizo
     
  5. Buchanan

    Buchanan JF Diamond Member

    #5
    Sep 2, 2012
    Joined: May 19, 2009
    Messages: 13,088
    Likes Received: 236
    Trophy Points: 160
    Naona Malawi imeanza kula kwao, walifikiri mambo yangewanyookea!
     
  6. dudus

    dudus JF-Expert Member

    #6
    Sep 2, 2012
    Joined: Feb 28, 2011
    Messages: 5,636
    Likes Received: 1,521
    Trophy Points: 280
    “Our findings are that Tanzania didn’t ratify the ICJ treaty"; kama kweli Tanzania haijafanya hivyo naomba kujua effects zake kwa Tanzania katika hii kesi.
     
  7. Buchanan

    Buchanan JF Diamond Member

    #7
    Sep 2, 2012
    Joined: May 19, 2009
    Messages: 13,088
    Likes Received: 236
    Trophy Points: 160
    Effect ni kwamba ICJ haiwezi kuwa msuluhishi wa mgogoro kati ya Tanzania na Malawi: Only that!
     
  8. N

    Nikupateje JF-Expert Member

    #8
    Sep 2, 2012
    Joined: Dec 22, 2009
    Messages: 1,172
    Likes Received: 5
    Trophy Points: 0
    1945 UN Charter whose Article 93 (1) reads: "All members of the United Nations are ipso facto parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice.".
     
  9. N

    Nikupateje JF-Expert Member

    #9
    Sep 2, 2012
    Joined: Dec 22, 2009
    Messages: 1,172
    Likes Received: 5
    Trophy Points: 0
    Mleta mada na huyo mwanasheria wenu acheni kudanganyana ama acheni kuwadanganya watanzania.

    Najua wanaodanganya hivi wanatumia uvivu wa watanzania kusoma na ndiyo maana kwenye hili la Malawi nimetuma post nyingi sana ili tuelewe mzigo uliopo na tusidhani kama ni kazi rahisi kulipata ziwa lile.

    Sasa naanza kufafanua kumpinga mleta mada kwamba hatuko subject to ICJ kama ifuatavyo.

    Kwanza ni lazima mtu uelewe ni nini maana ya neno Sovereignity. Tanzania ni Sovereign State. Maana yake nini?

    Sovereign maana yake haimo kwa kiswahili lakini ni dhana nzima ya kueleza kwamba tuko huru kwa maana ya kwamba community iliyo sovereign haiitawaliwi na community yoyote duniani. Haiingiliwi na community yoyote duniani.

    Sovereignity si lazima uwe na mipaka. RED CROSS ni sovereign body na ndiyo maana hata vitani kama kuna kambi ya RED CROSS basi huruhusiwi kuingia kwenye kambi hiyo hata kama anayehudumiwa humo ni adui yako.

    Kwa ujumla asilimia zaidi ya 99 duniani ni sovereign states kwa maana ya watu na maeneo yao. Isipokuwa taasisi tatu tu yaani Red Cross niliyoitaja halafu zingine ni Holy See na Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM). Holy See haina mipaka lakini ina-share mpaka na Vatican City State.

    Kuna utata wa Palestina kama sovereign state kwa sababu huwezi kusema liko huru wakati ni kweli hawana mpaka lakini wanakuwa controlled na Israel kwa mabavu kwa kiasi kikubwa.

    Sovereignity ni topic kubwa na inawea kuwa ngumu lakini niishie hapo kwa introduction ili niihusishe Tanzania na hili suala.

    Lakini ili taifa lako liitwe sovereign state kuna conditions kadhaa na moja nimeshaisema ni kutokuwa na body nyingine kukuingilia katika maamuzi yako. Ndiyo maana ninashindwa kutumie neno nchi na ninatumia sana neno state maana hata mzozo wa kutumia neno nchi umeleta mzozo mara kwa mara pale Pinda aliposema Zanzibar siyo nchi na pale Tundu Lissu anaposema Zanzibar imejitangazia uhuru.

    Ukweli ni kwamba hatoba ya Pinda au Tundu Lissu ingekuwa katika kiingereza wangesema "Zanzibar is not a sovereign state". Wasingepata matatizo lakini ni matatizo yanayotokana na kukosa translation ya neno sovereignity kwa kiswahili.

    Sasa, kuna condition nyingine ya sovereignity nayo ni kutambulika na mataifa mengine. Mfano mkijitangaza kuwa Mwanza, Kagera, Geita na Bukoba mmejitenga mkaanzisha taifa lenu kisha nchi nyingi duniani zikawatambua basi tayari hilo ni soveregin state na mta-enjoy hiyo sovereignity. Sababu hii ndiyo kikwazo kwa Palestina kwa sababu wengi Ulaya na America wanasema Palestina ni genge la wahuni na si taifa. Hivyo kwa kiasi hicho Palestina inaweza isiwe soveregin state kwa mtiazmo wao ingawa sisi Tanzania tunaitambua na tuna ubalozi nao.

    Hadi hapo nimetaja qualification mbili za kuwa na sovereign state. Kuwa huru na kutambuliwa na mataifa kadhaa. Qulity ya tatu au sifa ya sovereign state kwa kiingereza inasema {to be subject to international laws} yaani kulazimika kufuata sheria za kimataifa. Hii ni sifa mama ya sovereignity.

    Huwezi kuanzisha taifa mkapata Rais wenu na serikali yenu halafu eti taifa hilo lisema halitambui sheria za kimataifa. Ukifanya hivyo basi hiyo ni sifa kuu ya kutokutambua wewe kama taifa. Athari zake ni nini?

    Athari zake ni kwamba wewe umejitenga na mataifa yote. hakuna taifa litakalokutambua. Kwa sababu kama hutambui sheria za kimataifa basi maana yake unaweza kuvamia nchi yoyote au kumwua Rais wa nchi yoyote halafu sheria za kimataifa zikawa hazikugusi! Ni taifa gani humu duniani liko hivyo!

    Kwenye mambo yako ya ndani si tatizo sana kama hutaki yapelekwe kwenye international level. Wale mliosoma hukumu ya Jaji Augustino Ramadhani kuhusu Mgombea binafsi, yaani siku alipoibwaga kesi ya Mtikila alilifafanua hili kwa mbali. Moja ya madai ya Mtikila ilikuwa ni kuhusu haki ya mgombea binafsi ni haki ya kibinadamu kama ilivyopitishwa na agizo la haki za Binadamu mwaka 1948.

    Jaji Agustion Ramadhani alipinga kifungu hicho kwa kusema {Tanzania have never surrendered its sovereignty to internationa bodies}, yaani Tanzania haijakabidhi uhuru wake kuamriwa mambo yake na taasisi za kimataifa.

    Lakini hapa ni tofauti. Ugombea binafsi ni suala letu kitaifa na Jaji alikuwa sahihi kwa katiba ya sasa. Lakini kwa masuala ya sisi na sovereign states zingine huwezi kukwepa intervention ya intentional laws ambacho ndicho kiini cha sovereignity.

    Hivyo, Tanzania haiwezikukwepa masuala yake si na Malawi tu bali na taasisi za kimataifa kushughulikiwa na international justice system. Nimetaja mfano wa kesi ya Dowans lakini kuna mifano mingi sana ya international jurisdiction kushughulikia mambo ya au yanayogusa Tanzania.

    Kama kwa hili la Malawi eti Tanzani atutasema hatuitambui International Court of Justice kama anavyoshawishi mleta mada na huyo proffesa wa sheria basi maana yake tutakuwa tunajitangaza kwamba Tanzania we are not subject to international laws. Hivyo hata ile habari ya UN Convetion of 1982 iliyogawanya maji nusu kwa nusu kama hakuna signed treaty tuache kabisa kuizungumzia maana si sheria ya Tanzania ile bali ni sheria ya kimataifa.

    lakini zaid ni kwamba tukifanya hivyo basi tunakuwa tumejivua wenyewe sovereignity yetu na tumetengwa na dunia na tuishi kivyetu tu kama kisiwa. Jambo ambalo hata taifa tajiri kupita yote yaani Marekani haliwezi kufikiria kufanya ukichaa kama huo.
     
  10. C

    Concrete JF-Expert Member

    #10
    Sep 2, 2012
    Joined: Mar 12, 2011
    Messages: 3,608
    Likes Received: 10
    Trophy Points: 0
    Ukweli unauma tena mchungu sana,
    Kwa jinsi nilivyomsikia JK kwenye hotuba yake ya mwisho wa mwezi August ni kwamba kihistoria na kisheria ziwa lote ni la Malawi lakini kiuhalisia kuna haja ya sisi kudai kupewa sehemu ya umiliki wa ziwa lile!!

    Na kwa ufuatiliaji wangu wa mada hii humu JF mpaka sasa sijaona facts yoyote ya kisheria au kihistoria yenye nguvu ambayo sisi Tanzania tunaweza kusimamia ili tuweze kushinda, zaidi ya blahblah za kufikirika tu.
     
  11. N

    Nikupateje JF-Expert Member

    #11
    Sep 2, 2012
    Joined: Dec 22, 2009
    Messages: 1,172
    Likes Received: 5
    Trophy Points: 0
    Mimi si mwanasheria,

    Lakini nimeshikiri kwa kisai kikubwa humu jamvini kuhusu hili la Malawi. Ninachokiona ni kwamba ubabaishaji umekuwa mwingi kila mahala kiasi kwamba kila hoja inapoibuka ni ya kibabaishaji na inaweza kupingwa humuhumu jamvini na si lazima ifike ICJ.

    Kama ndivyo hivi wataalamu wetu hujadili masuala ya kimataifa basi naamini taifa lilishaangamia siku nyingi. Ujenzi wa hoja ni sifuri kabisa. SIna matumaini.

    Mimi bado narudia niliyosema kwamba nikona hoja ambayo binafsi siwezi kuipiga na hoja hiyo nikaona inaweza kutupatia nusu ya ziwa Malawi basi sintaacha kuiunga mkono, kuliko hoja hizi zinazokuja hazina kichwa wala miguu na wala husumbuki sana kuzisambaratisha.
     
  12. Kibanga Ampiga Mkoloni

    Kibanga Ampiga Mkoloni JF-Expert Member

    #12
    Sep 3, 2012
    Joined: Aug 9, 2007
    Messages: 12,399
    Likes Received: 226
    Trophy Points: 160
    Mbona tumelipa DOWNS kwa vifungu hivi hivi?
     
  13. Escobar

    Escobar JF-Expert Member

    #13
    Sep 3, 2012
    Joined: Sep 16, 2011
    Messages: 365
    Likes Received: 7
    Trophy Points: 35
    Tatizo Wamalawi wanajipa matumaini kuwa ipo siku watashinda madai yao na kujitwalia ziwa lote kitu ambacho hakiwezekani zaidi ya kupotezeana muda tu!
     
  14. Obi

    Obi JF-Expert Member

    #14
    Sep 3, 2012
    Joined: Jul 6, 2009
    Messages: 376
    Likes Received: 4
    Trophy Points: 35
    Mkuu Buchanan ICJ inaweza kusuhisha hii kesi. Ni uamuzi wa Tanzania kukubaliana na uamuzi wa ICJ au kukataa. Inategemea na uamuzi wenyewe kama utaendana na matakwa ya Tanzania. Malawi inalazimika kukubaliana na uamuzi wowote utakaotolewa na hiyo mahakama
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 4, 2016
  15. Buchanan

    Buchanan JF Diamond Member

    #15
    Sep 3, 2012
    Joined: May 19, 2009
    Messages: 13,088
    Likes Received: 236
    Trophy Points: 160
    MKuu Obi you are right, that is what I also meant although I didn't write to that extent.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 4, 2016
  16. pmwasyoke

    pmwasyoke JF-Expert Member

    #16
    Sep 3, 2012
    Joined: May 27, 2010
    Messages: 3,505
    Likes Received: 101
    Trophy Points: 160
    Hoja ya watu wetu kulitumia ziwa siku nyingi kujikimu haina mashiko. Jee ukitumia kitu cha mwenzio siku nyingi unapata haki ya kukimiliki?

    Zinahitajika hoja za nguvu zaidi - kama hakuna tuachie ngazi.
     
  17. Rutashubanyuma

    Rutashubanyuma JF-Expert Member

    #17
    Sep 3, 2012
    Joined: Sep 24, 2010
    Messages: 61,381
    Likes Received: 490
    Trophy Points: 180
    Mkakati wangu wa utatuzi wa mgogoro wa mpaka na malawi ni kama ifuatavyo:-

    1) Mpaka ambao unazungumziwa kuwa UK na Mjerumani walikubaliana Julai Mosi 1890 ni mpaka wa kufikirika kwani hauna mipaka ya kudumu hivyo kuutumia kama kigezo cha majadiliano kutatuweka katika khali ya kushindwa........

    2) Kama Malawi wanataka makubaliano ya wakoloni kuwa ni kigezo cha kudai ziwa Nyasa lote basi wakubali kuachia mto Nyasa wote kama wakoloni walivyokubaliana jambo ambalo Malawi kamwe hawatathubutu kufanya hivyo....... na hivyo kujenga mazingira ya kuafikiana na mipaka iliyopo...............ambayo ni katikati ya ziwa tajwa...........

    3)Mwingereza kuamua pekee yake kuwapa Malawi mto Nyasa bila ya kutushirikisha wakati yeye alipewa hadhi ya "protectorate" na huku Malawi hawakutubadilishia na lolote ulikuwa ni mgongano wa masilahi makubwa.............Sisi tulinifaika na nini kwa kuwapa Malawi mto wote kama siyo upendeleo wa Mwingereza kwa koloni lake?...........haiwezekani Malawi liwe koloni la mwingereza ambalo ana sauti nalo halafu aimege Tanganyika kwa manufaa ya koloni lake bila ya kutushirikisha au hata kupata kibali cha UN.............Hivyo maamuzi tajwa yanafaa kubatilishwa........................

    4)Misingi iliyotumiwa na Mwingereza katika kusimika mipaka ya Malawi na Msumbiji katikati ya Ziwa Nyasa inabidi iangaliwe upya ili kuona kwanini vigezo hivyo hivyo visitumike sasa kutupatia haki ya miliki ya nusu kwa nusu ya Ziwa Nyasa na Malawi wakiachiwa umiliki wa mto Nyasa
    ....................kama sehemu ya "give and take.........." Tutumie utata wa umiliki wa mto Nyasa kama "bargain chip"..................among other weaponry of mass destruction...............in legal terms, though..........

    Ninawakilisha......
     
  18. R.B

    R.B JF-Expert Member

    #18
    Sep 4, 2012
    Joined: May 10, 2012
    Messages: 5,506
    Likes Received: 605
    Trophy Points: 280
    Raisi kasema wazi huu mgogoro unahitaji mediator , jurisdiction or habituation ni nani .

    Tukienda mahakamani tunaweza jibu haya maswali. nisaidieni njinsi ya kuyakwepa maswali haya mahakamani

    (a) the interpretation of a treaty;
    (b) any question of international law;
    (c) the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation;
    (d) the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation."
     
  19. R.B

    R.B JF-Expert Member

    #19
    Sep 5, 2012
    Joined: May 10, 2012
    Messages: 5,506
    Likes Received: 605
    Trophy Points: 280
    Hamza Johari (LLM International Law) is a part time lecturer University of Dar es Salaam, National Institute of Transport and a former part time lecturer Mzumbe University and Essami Associate Consultant. He is a Secretary to the Council, Tanzania Civil Aviation Authority Consumer Consultative Council.


    [h=1]Is Treaty of 1890 On Malawi-Tanzania Border Lawful?[/h]


    I have been following the present border dispute between Tanzania and Malawi for quite sometimes now and I have read various comments, opinions and ideas from various individuals, diplomats and jurists from both sides of the dispute on this matter.

    As an expert in International Laws, I feel obliged to share my views specifically on the International Customary Laws principles which Tanzanian side is establishing its argument; article VI of the treaty and the legality of article I(2) of Anglo-German Treaty of 1890 which Malawi is trying to rely on.
    Drawing upon the experience of century, nations have constructed a customary international law for transboundary fresh water resources built around the principle of equitable utilization.
    The earliest complete formulation of International Customary Law in the area of International Water Law was the Helsinki Rules on the Uses of International Rivers of the International Law Association of 1966. Other codifications of International Customary Law on the area of International Water Law are United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea, which was done at Montego Bay, 1982, United Nations Convention on Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses of 1997 and Berlin Rules on Water Resources of 2004.
    A set of 16 principles were adopted and codified under International Customary Law with International Law association. Among those principles, the principle of equitable utilization and obligation not to cause significant harm to the dwellers of either side of transboundary waters were adopted and codified. International Customary Law (Jus Cogens) May be it is important to give a brief definition of International Customary Law.
    In short this is a collection of customs and rules of behavior adopted and accepted by International Community to legally solve and regulate various issues of International Character and are primary sources of International Law. We should note here that there are two types of International Customary Laws, first we have International Customary Laws accepted by International Community or in other words we call them Jus Cogens and second we have customary law recognized by few nations.
    Under the first type, Jus Cogens are those International Customs where Member States of International Community are not allowed to derogate. We should again note here that Jus Cogens are peremptory norms and have imperative powers and violation is not permitted. All jus cogens are customary international law through their adoption by states, but not all customary international laws rise to the level of peremptory norms (Jus Cogens).
    States can formulate various treaties but the principle is that they should not violate the norms of International Customary Law or jus cogens. The acceptance of jus cogens is recognition of the fact that mere treaty between States cannot have the highest value but rather the need to maintain peace or whatever objective a treaty may have. We all know that the objective of Heligoland treaty was colonization.
    Early jurists gave jus cogens the quality of natural law; it overrides all contradictory man-made laws. Two of the most important principles of International Customary Law as derived from various International Conventions governing transboundary waters are; first equitable utilization and second is the obligation not to cause significant harm to the dwellers or people of the both sides of transboundary waters.
    These two principles were adopted under the auspice of human rights which are peremptory norms and jus cogens principles. There are other 14 principles but these are the first two by their order of arrangements and relevant to the Tanzania and Malawi border dispute. Water is unquestionably one of the most important of all the resources that human beings depend upon for their survival and prosperity.
    We recognize water as life as in many preambles of international water protocols. It is one of the key issues as far as human rights are concerned. It is under the auspice of this fact the International Community under International Customary Law derived a principle of equitable utilization on the transboundary fresh water resources such as lakes, rivers etc and that border delimitation must consider that principle.
    According to article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, a treaty is void if it conflicts with peremptory norm of general international law. The International Law Commission in its commentary gives the following examples that are contrary to jus cogens rules: A treaty permitting the commission of an act that is criminal such as slave trade, piracy, genocide etc
    The use of force contrary to the principles of the United Nations Charter A treaty violating human rights Setting the border on the eastern shore of Lake Nyasa or in other words giving the whole lake to Malawi could mean threatening the survival and prosperity of the people living along the eastern shores of Lake Nyasa on Tanzanian side and violation of their human rights for survival and prosperity.
    Article I (2) of the Anglo-German agreement of 1890 is contrary to the rules of jus cogens and hence Malawi should not rely on that particular article. According to the doctrine of thalweg under International Customary Law in the sphere of International Water Laws, the frontier between two States should be set at the middle of transboundary waters.
    In the case of Burkina Faso - Mali case over the pool of In Abao, The International Court of Justice applied "equity infra legem" under the principle of equitable utilization to the division of frontier between these two States over the said pool. A section of that judgment between Burkina Faso - Mali states as follows: "It will be for the Parties... to fix the position of the pool of In Abao and to define two points lying on the same parallel of latitude, such that a straight line drawn between these points will divide the expanse of the pool in equal proportions between the Parties."


    To be continued ...................................................


     
  20. H

    Hardwood JF-Expert Member

    #20
    Sep 5, 2012
    Joined: Sep 21, 2010
    Messages: 637
    Likes Received: 162
    Trophy Points: 60
    Kaka nimekudaka utamu sana!!!
     
Loading...