Are you for generalization or against generalization? One minute you were asking me to not generalize, the next you are sprouting the flowery merits of generalization. Can you be consistent? How can we hope to have an intelligible discussion if you are all over the map like a migrating bird?
Bob Geldof asked a question. How do you deduce all your biased notions about him just because he asked a question? Are you a racist pig who consider every European as a condescending bastard with neither heart nor sense of history?
How do you know that Bob Geldof was not heading towards railing the same history you mentioned?
The relevant parts of the constitution are 46 (1, 2, 3)
46.-(1) During the President’s tenure of office in accordance with this Constitution it shall be prohibited to institute or continue in court any criminal proceedings whatsoever against him.
(2) During the President’s tenure of office in accordance this Constitution, no civil proceedings against him shall be instituted in court in respect of anything done or not done, or purporting to have been done or not done,
by him in his personal capacity as an ordinary citizen whether before or after he assumed the office of President, unless at least thirty days before the proceedings are instituted in court, notice of claim in writing has been delivered to him or sent
to him pursuant to the procedure prescribed by an Act of Parliament, stating the nature of such proceedings, the cause of action, the name, residential address of the claimant and the relief which he claims.
(3) Except where he ceases to hold the office of President pursuant to the provisions of Article 46A(10) it shall be prohibited to institute in court criminal or civil proceedings whatsoever against a person who was holding the office of
President after he ceases to hold such office for anything he did in his capacity as President while he held the office of President in accordance with this Constitution.
Part 1 and 2 talks about during a presidents tenure and therefore are not relevant to ex presidents.
The entire immunity issue for Kikwete rests on the highlited and italicized part of 3. Kikwete can be prosecuted for things he did as a minister. That part is not covered. He signed a lot of the Bulyanhulu mining contracts. Whatever his defense, he can state it in court.
There is no part of the constitution that says a person who was holding the office of the president shall not have criminal or civil proceedings brought against him.
Term limits already takes care of the concern. A true tyrant can trash any constitution.
There is a rationale for this. There is a reason why the constitution does not talk about immunity for a former president for things done before that person assumed the presidency.
The immunity is to enable a sitting president to do presidential work unincumbered by concerns for litigation, else, a sitting president could be paralyzed to inaction due to concerns of litigation
Your options, in context, are irrelevant as they are resting on a fallacious assumption.
Moreover, overlooking mistakes is lack of accountability. We need more accountability, not less.
The divine do not inspire me, I inspire the divine.
What you call pontification carries some rather important points. I fear you are failing to understand me by jotting this as mere pontification.
Even when Magufuli is doing the right thing, he is doing the right thing in a wrong way.
The entire thing about overhauling mining contracts is a good move, the hapharzard way it is being done, complete with circus shows featuring Prof. Osoro and blank amnesty towards the Kikwetes of the world, is wrong.
You wouldn't know a compliment from an insult.
I am not interested in the opposition so much as I am interested in Magufuli and his party. They are the incumbents.
I am not sure why are you bent on the opposition while they clearly do not hold office.
Magufuli is shooting himself in the foot by being overly Draconian and ruling like a modern day Hammurabi.
Your reading of the constitution leaves much to be desired. Kikwete can be dragged into court for things he did as minister of Minerals, along with others.
Magufuli knows of no path, he meanders like a drunken sailor ho depends on the stars for navigation on a cloudy night.
He meanders more than the mekong and lacks direction like the subject of a Max Romeo song.
The amount of money Tanzanians in Tanzania ask me for is evidence enough that I am rather fortunate to be outside Tanzania now.
The lack of freedom of expression also points to a police state that I can hardly say I would enjoy.
Promising to whom? Do you know that a promise is comfort to a fool?
"Magufuli's policies" is an oxymoron, right up there with "friendly fire".The guy makes the law as he goes along
You must mean lack of style.The guy does not know anything about collective responsibility, neither does he respect principle such as separation of church and state or separation of powers, that is not style, that is lack of style.
The trouble is you wouldn't know trouble if trouble stared you in the face.
Magufuli is trouble, you are hellbent against that.Only time will show you.
