Fatma Karume vs Attorney general: Who is legally right with regards to stay of execution in Bob Chacha Wangwe's constitutional case?

[jabulani]

It wasn't me.

 

[Msengapavi]

I intend to translate it into Swahili Language if my timetable permits me to do so.

Please make time for translating it and Keep It Simple (KIS).

 

[Matojo Cosatta]

Please make time for translating it and Keep It Simple (KIS).

Noted

 

[Matojo Cosatta]

With due respect to you my learned Brother. First of all Congratulations for the Efforts you endeavoured to prepare this Article.
I have gone through it and engaged myself with the provison of S.14 of CAP 3. To my opinion. The Central issue is on the two exceptions. Now in your Article expected your argument to rely on the exceptions specifically on whether the breaches alleged by Miss Fatuma Karume, Learned Advocate, does or does not fall within the exeptions. To my opinion that is what is going to be the issue before the Court of Appeal.
And, most importantly, what does the words Continous breach and Person Injuries entails. My be deep exproliation of the exceptions under the abovementioned section would have provided us with a clear picture. Thank you!

It is true, the most contentious legal issue is expected to centre on exceptions to the general rule of Automatic Stay and more so on continuous breach exception.

 

[Dr Akili]

First and foremost, I would like to tender my sincere apology for employing English Language and legal language or technical language in analysing this subject matter of national importance in lieu of Swahili language and in lieu of plain English Language. This work is in legal language because the targeted audience was legal fraternity, this was for consumption of lawyers, however, I find that it is "lesser evil" to share this legal work with members of Jamiiforums than not sharing it at all as at JF there are several lawyers and several intellectuals of Mkiliman caliber who stand in the position to comprehend my submissions.

Read my conclusion carefully, it will tell you by necessary implication who is right and who is wrong. Conclusion need not be express, sometimes we do conclude by necessary implication.

Ndugu Matoja wala hujakosea kuleta hoja yako hiyo kwenye jukwaa hili la great thinkers wa kila aina ili kuweza kupata maono ya kuiboresha.

Kwanza tusitake kuwa watumwa wa hiyo english legal language/jargons. Tena ingependeza ungeweka swahili version ya hivyo vipengele vya sheria ulivyovinukuu. Sheria zinatungwa na wananchi kwa ajili yao kupitia kwa wawakilishi wao bungeni na ambao wengi wao hawajui wala hawana sababu ya kujua hiyo lugha ya waingereza. Huwaachia wanasheria kuwaandikia hizo sheria walizokubaliana zitungwe. Huandikwa kwa lugha zote mbili - kiingereza na kiswahili.

Kazi ya mahakama ni kufafanua hizo sheria. Kazi ya mahakama si kufanya ukalimali wa kilichoandikwa kwenye hizo sheria - yaani language interpretation. Kazi ya mahakama ni kufanya uchambuzi yakinifu wa malengo ya hizo sheria na kutoa maamuzi.

Tunatarajia mahakama ya rufaa itafanya uchambuzi yakinifu wa malengo ya hivyo vipengele vya sheria ulivyovinukuu kuhusu uahirishaji wa utekelezaji wa hiyo hukumu ya mahakama kuu. Lengo la hivyo vifungu ni kuwa kama utekelezaji wa hiyo hukumu unaweza kuleta madhara kwa upande mojawapo wa hizo pande mbili, basi utekelezaji wake huahirishwa baada tu ya upande mmoja kukata rufaa. Hiyo ndiyo wanasomi wetu wameiandika kama "continous breach or personal injury".

Mwanasheria mkuu wa serikali amekata rufaa kwa sababu utekelezaji wa hukumu hiyo ndani ya kipindi kifupi haitawezekana bila kuleta madhara makubwa kwa taifa na wananchi wote kwa jumla. Mfumo wa Tume ya Uchaguzi hauwezi kubadilishwa ndani ya muda mfupi. Inahitaji maandalizi thabiti hususani ya kibajeti na kubadilisha sheria zetu. Ili kubadili mfumo huu mara moja mwananchi atapaswa kutozwa kodi zaidi za kuwezesha kuanzisha na kuendesha mfumo huo mpya. Haya ndiyo madhara ya kutekeleza hukumu hiyo mara moja.

Siyo kwamba AG na wananchi walio wengi hawakubaliani na hukumu ya mahakama kuu kwamba wakurugenzi wa wilaya (baadhi) wanaoendelea kuwa wanachama wa vyama vya siasa huku wakiwa ni wateule wa Tume ya Uchaguzi kama wasimamizi wa uchaguzi katika maeneo yao, ni uvunjifu wa katiba ya nchi. Laa haswa. Wakurugenzi hawa hawapaswi kabisa kuendelea kuwa wanachama wa chama cho chote cha siasa wala kujihusisha na shughuli zo zote za vyama vya siasa. Na hili liko kwenye sheria za utumishi wa umma. Hata Ma RAS na watumishi wote wa umma wanapaswa kisheria kuwa hivyo pamoja wanajeshi (all civil servants and millitary servants).

Tangia nchi yetu ipate uhuru toka kwa ukoloni wa kiingereza mfumo wetu wa Tume ya Uchaguzi umekuwa ukiwatumia wakurugenzi hawa kama wasimamizi wa uchaguzi kwenye maeneo yao. Wao pamoja na Mwenyekiti wa Tume ya Uchaguzi huteuliwa na mkuu wa nchi ambaye pia ni rais wa serikali ya JMT na amiri mkuu wa majeshi ya JMT. Na hii ni kwa mujibu wa Katiba. Sheria za nchi zinawataka wateule hawa wa rais, mara baada ya teuzi zao kuachana kabisa na vyama vya siasa. Hao waliobainika katika kesi hiyo ya Wangwe vs AG kuendelea kujihusisha na vyama vya siasa (CCM) baada ya teuzi zao, wanapaswa kuchukuliwa hatua kali za kisheria pamoja na kutengua ukurugenzi wao mara moja.

Madhara ya kuahirisha utekelezaji wa mara moja wa mabadiliko ya mfumo wa uchaguzi hayapo kwani mfumo huo umekuwepo siku zote na wnanchi walishauzoea. Serikali ipewe muda wa kutosha kufanya mabadiliko yanayokusudiwa ikihusisha wadau wote. Hata kwenye hiyo kesi ya Mtikila vs AG kuhusiana na mgombea binafsi, hata baada ya Mtikila kushinda kesi hiyo ya kikatiba katika mahakama kuu na mahakama ya rufaa utekelezaji wake hadi leo bado haujafanyika. Inasubiri labda katiba mpya. Hii ya Fatuma /Wangwe vs AG, great thinkers hawadhani kama itafanikiwa.

 

[Shoctopus]

DOES THE PENDENCY OF GOVERNMENT'S NOTICE OF APPEAL IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OPERATES AS AUTOMATIC STAY OF EXECUTION OF DECISION OF HIGH COURT IN CONSTITUTIONAL CASES?

By Matojo M. Cosatta


PART I: INTRODUCTION

It is unfortunate that I am not the constitutional lawyer rather “I m jack of all trades, and master of none”, however, let me enjoy constitutional freedom of expression by sharing my own thoughts on the matter.

As it is well known by all informed citizens of this great res republica that on 10th May, 2019, the High of Court (Main Registry) at Dar es Salaam in the case of Bob Chacha Wangwe Vs Attorney General and Others, Misc. Civil Cause No. 17 of 2018 as per Ngwala, Masoud and Matogolo (judges) declared provisions of Section 7 (1) and (3) of the National Election Act, Cap. 343 to be unconstitutional for being repugnant to, and inconsistent with some provisions of the Constitution of United Republic of Tanzania, 1977. The said provisions of election statute used to confer power on City, Municipal, Town and District Council Directors to be returning officers by operation of law in presidential and parliamentary elections at constituency level.

The Government of United Republic of Tanzania was aggrieved by such decision of High Court as result Attorney General lodged Notice of Appeal to challenge such decision of High Court on 13th May, 2019 and the source of this information is Attorney General’s Press Conference with journalists and the Public Notice issued by Office of Attorney General dated 13th May, 2019 and titled “Taarifa kwa Umma Kuhusu Msimamo wa Serikali Kuhusu Uamuzi wa Mahakama Kuu ya Tanzania Katika Kesi ya Kikatiba Iliyofunguliwa na Bob Chacha Wangwe dhidi ya Mwanasheria Mkuu wa Serikali na Wenzake Kupinga Vifungu vya Sheria ya Taifa ya Uchaguzi Kuhusu Wasimamizi wa Uchaguzi.” .

Attorney General via the said Press Conference informed the general public his legal stance on the matter that the Notice of Appeal in constitutional cases operates to stay automatically the decision of High Court. It is important to note that legal position taken by Attorney General on any legal matter is deemed to be official legal position of Government until is either recalled by Attorney General himself or is reversed by Cabinet or competent court of law as per Section 23 (1) of the Office of Attorney General (Discharge of Duties) Act, 2005.

However, the former President of Tanganyika Law Society (TLS) and counsel for petitioner (Mr. Wangwe), Bi Fatma Karume took opposite legal stance that Notice of Appeal does not operate as automatic stay of execution where the provision of statute so declared by High Court to be unconstitutional continues to breach or violates provisions of constitution in issue. Bi Fatma Karume opines that provisions of Section 7 (1) and (3) of the National Election Act, Cap. 343 declared to be unconstitutional involves continuous breach of provisions of the Constitution, therefore, Miss Karume is of the firm view that government’s Notice of Appeal does not operate automatically to stay the decision of High Court in circumstance.

Within legal fraternity and political fraternity, the serous legal and jurisprudential debate has ensued from these two antagonistic legal views, one being of Bi Fatma Karume and another being of Attorney General, Professor Adelardus Kilangi. The said serious debate centres on the following legal issue or question:


"Does pendency of Government's Notice of Appeal in the Court of Appeal operate automatically to stay the decision of High Court in constitutional cases."

This is the legal issue or question, this work intends or seeks to answer.



PART II: LEGAL ANALYSIS

As general Rule once government lodges the Notice of Appeal in appropriate registry as far as constitutional case is concerned indispensably the Notice of Appeal operates as automatic stay of execution of decision of High Court as per Section 14 (3) of the Basic Right and Duties Enforcement Act, Cap. 3 and for easy reference the provisions of Section 14 (3) are reproduced verbatim hereunder;

​

“14(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code * or of any other law to the contrary, where in proceedings under this Act which do not involve continuous breach or personal injuries, the Government files a notice of intention to appeal against any decision of a court, the notice shall, when entered, operate as a stay of execution upon the decision sought to be appealed against.”​

However, this General Rule on Automatic Stay of Execution of decision of High Court in constitutional case admits two exceptions namely;

(1) Notice of Appeal does not operate as automatic stay of execution of decision of High Court in constitutional cases where act, decision or provision of law declared by High Court to be unconstitutional “constitutes or involves continuous breach” of provision of the constitution in issue.

(2) Notice of Appeal does not operate as automatic stay of execution of decision of High Court in constitutional cases where act, decision or provision of law declared by High Court to be unconstitutional “causes personal injury”.

However, the Court of Appeal of Tanzania in its order made on 8th February, 2010 arising out of the case of Attorney General Vs Reverend Christopher Mtikila, Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2009 at page 3 of printed ruling observed that pendency of appeal in the Court of Appeal arising out of constitutional case does not operate as automatic stay. The Court of Appeal in its own words at page 3 of printed ruling observed as reproduced verbatim hereunder;

“However, for avoidance of doubt we wish to refresh the memories of the learned Deputy Attorney General and his team that an appeal does not operate an automatic stay. So, the law as it is at the moment and onward to the General Election in October, is what the High Court has decided, that is, independent candidates are allowed” ​

My humble opinion is that Court of Appeal made the said order per incuriam either in forgetfulness or in ignorance of existence of provisions of Section 14 (3) of the Basic Right and Duties Enforcement Act, Cap. 3 within the purview of the term as defined in the case of Morelle Ltd v Wakeling [1955] 2 QB 379 and approved by East African Court of Appeal in the case of Kiriri Cotton Co. Vs Dewani [1958] E.A 239 . It seems to me that the Court of Appeal in making such order mistakenly had in mind the provisions of Rule 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 instead of Section 14 (3) of Cap. 3. My humble and honest believe that Court of Appeal made the said order per incuriam is founded on the fact that Court of Appeal neither expressly nor impliedly considered or made any reference to provisions of Section 14 (3) of Cap. 3 and the decision it made falls quite squarely in provisions of Rule 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2019 which is inapplicable to stay of execution of decision of High Court in Constitutional Cases.

As General Rule in the realm of “Stare Decisis” Court of Appeal is bound by its own previous decision and there are plethora of unbroken chain of legal authorities to support this legal proposition, inter alia, include the following cases;

(i) London Street Tramways Vs London City Council, [1898] AC 375

(ii) Dodhia v. National Grindlay Bank [1970] E.A. 195

(iii) Juwata v. Kiuta, Civ. App. No. 29 of 1987

This General Rule in the realm of “Stare Decisis” that Court of Appeal is bound by its own previous decision admits several exceptions and one of them is that the Court of Appeal is not bound by its own previous decision given per incuriam in ignorance or forgetfulness of binding statutory provisions and legal authority for this legal proposition include the following;

(i) London Street Tramways Vs London City Council, [1898] AC 375

(ii) Riziki Binti Abdulla Vs Sharifa binti Mohamed Bion Hemed [1959] E.A 1035

Since the Court of Appeal is not bound by its own previous decision given per incurium, then the three justices of the Court of Appeal are likely not to follow the ratio decindendi in Attorney General Vs Mtikila Case simply because it was given per incurium. The Court of Appeal in case of Juwata v. Kiuta, Civ. App. No. 29 of 1987 overruled its own previous decision given per incuriam in the case of Zambia Tanzania Road Services Ltd Vs J.K Pallangyo, Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1982.



PART III: CONCLUSION

In circumstances what is the position of law pro tempore? For the time being the ratio decidendi in Attorney General Vs Mtikila Case stands as legal position. Though the decision of the Court of Appeal in Attorney General Vs Mtikila Case appears to have been given per incuriam but the position of the law in the matter is as it was decided by Court of Appeal on 8th February, 2010 that pendency of appeal in the Court of Appeal arising out of constitutional case does not operate as automatic stay. This is so because the decision of the court once delivered remains valid until reversed by the competent superior judicial authority, in the circumstance, the decision of the court of appeal in Attorney General Vs Mtikila Case continues to be valid until is overruled by Full Bench of the Court of Appeal or is vacated by bench of three justices of appeal on review or revision.

This is how I understand the law to be correct.



Matojo M. Cosatta is advocate of High Court of Tanzania and for purpose of any comment, criticism and improvement of this work, author can be reached via his e-mail address: cosatta9@gmail.com

Hivi ninyi wanasheria siku zote mko wapi? Leo ndio mmeona NEC haiko huru?
Pamoja na hayo nakubali kazi ya huyu mchambuzi.
Ila kuna wasomaji wengine hawataelewa mpaka Michuzi awachoree!

 

[Matojo Cosatta]

Hivi ninyi wanasheria siku zote mko wapi? Leo ndio mmeona NEC haiko huru?
Pamoja na hayo nakubali kazi ya huyu mchambuzi.
Ila kuna wasomaji wengine hawataelewa mpaka Michuzi awachoree!

Ninampango wa kutafsiri hili andiko kwa Kiswahili iwapo muda utaniruhusu kufanya hivyo.

 

[Shoctopus]

Ninampango wa kutafsiri hili andiko kwa Kiswahili iwapo muda utaniruhusu kufanya hivyo.

Sawa, wamulikie wananchi! You've become one of the trailblazers for those seeking justice in these dark days.

 

[Mwananchi]

Matojo, as much as you have tried to go forth and back and taking into account the fact that this forum is read by many people who might not be lawyers like yourself and some of us who can understand your submissions, you've failed to conclude directly as to who is right on their positions between the AG and Fatima Karume.

Next time you need to be smart enough!!

I think reading through the concluding paragraph you know the position that for the time being the ratio decidendi in Attorney General Vs Mtikila Case stands as legal position until it is decided otherwise because of its per incuriam. So in that way Cosatta opined that Fatuma she is still right

 

[Ulimakafu]

wanasheria mnabwebwe, eti 'ratio decidendi', hivi kwanini msiseme tu 'the rationale for the decision'?. au ndio mbinu yakutufukuza ma 'bush lawyer'?

na kweli.

 

[Ngatele]

However, this General Rule on Automatic Stay of Execution of decision of High Court in constitutional case admits two exceptions namely;

(1) Notice of Appeal does not operate as automatic stay of execution of decision of High Court in constitutional cases where act, decision or provision of law declared by High Court to be unconstitutional “constitutes or involves continuous breach” of provision of the constitution in issue.

(2) Notice of Appeal does not operate as automatic stay of execution of decision of High Court in constitutional cases where act, decision or provision of law declared by High Court to be unconstitutional “causes personal injury”.

Mimi si mwanasheria but sijaona mahali (au labda nimesoma haraharaka) ambapo umeongelea kama kuendelea kwa wakurugenzi wanaosemekana ni makada wa chama itakuwa ni continuous breach of constitution hence hukumu ya High Court in amount to Automatic stay. Umeenda ku discuss hukumu ya Mtikila bila ku relate hizo exceptions.

 

[Matojo Cosatta]

However, this General Rule on Automatic Stay of Execution of decision of High Court in constitutional case admits two exceptions namely;

(1) Notice of Appeal does not operate as automatic stay of execution of decision of High Court in constitutional cases where act, decision or provision of law declared by High Court to be unconstitutional “constitutes or involves continuous breach” of provision of the constitution in issue.

(2) Notice of Appeal does not operate as automatic stay of execution of decision of High Court in constitutional cases where act, decision or provision of law declared by High Court to be unconstitutional “causes personal injury”.

Mimi si mwanasheria but sijaona mahali (au labda nimesoma haraharaka) ambapo umeongelea kama kuendelea kwa wakurugenzi wanaosemekana ni makada wa chama itakuwa ni continuous breach of constitution hence hukumu ya High Court in amount to Automatic stay. Umeenda ku discuss hukumu ya Mtikila bila ku relate hizo exceptions.

Hilo pungufu nimeliona nikipata muda nitariboresha.

 

[Ng'wale]

Ndugu Matoja wala hujakosea kuleta hoja yako hiyo kwenye jukwaa hili la great thinkers wa kila aina ili kuweza kupata maono ya kuiboresha.

Kwanza tusitake kuwa watumwa wa hiyo english legal language/jargons. Tena ingependeza ungeweka swahili version ya hivyo vipengele vya sheria ulivyovinukuu. Sheria zinatungwa na wananchi kwa ajili yao kupitia kwa wawakilishi wao bungeni na ambao wengi wao hawajui wala hawana sababu ya kujua hiyo lugha ya waingereza. Huwaachia wanasheria kuwaandikia hizo sheria walizokubaliana zitungwe. Huandikwa kwa lugha zote mbili - kiingereza na kiswahili.

Kazi ya mahakama ni kufafanua hizo sheria. Kazi ya mahakama si kufanya ukalimali wa kilichoandikwa kwenye hizo sheria - yaani language interpretation. Kazi ya mahakama ni kufanya uchambuzi yakinifu wa malengo ya hizo sheria na kutoa maamuzi.

Tunatarajia mahakama ya rufaa itafanya uchambuzi yakinifu wa malengo ya hivyo vipengele vya sheria ulivyovinukuu kuhusu uahirishaji wa utekelezaji wa hiyo hukumu ya mahakama kuu. Lengo la hivyo vifungu ni kuwa kama utekelezaji wa hiyo hukumu unaweza kuleta madhara kwa upande mojawapo wa hizo pande mbili, basi utekelezaji wake huahirishwa baada tu ya upande mmoja kukata rufaa. Hiyo ndiyo wanasomi wetu wameiandika kama "continous breach or personal injury".

Mwanasheria mkuu wa serikali amekata rufaa kwa sababu utekelezaji wa hukumu hiyo ndani ya kipindi kifupi haitawezekana bila kuleta madhara makubwa kwa taifa na wananchi wote kwa jumla. Mfumo wa Tume ya Uchaguzi hauwezi kubadilishwa ndani ya muda mfupi. Inahitaji maandalizi thabiti hususani ya kibajeti na kubadilisha sheria zetu. Ili kubadili mfumo huu mara moja mwananchi atapaswa kutozwa kodi zaidi za kuwezesha kuanzisha na kuendesha mfumo huo mpya. Haya ndiyo madhara ya kutekeleza hukumu hiyo mara moja.

Siyo kwamba AG na wananchi walio wengi hawakubaliani na hukumu ya mahakama kuu kwamba wakurugenzi wa wilaya (baadhi) wanaoendelea kuwa wanachama wa vyama vya siasa huku wakiwa ni wateule wa Tume ya Uchaguzi kama wasimamizi wa uchaguzi katika maeneo yao, ni uvunjifu wa katiba ya nchi. Laa haswa. Wakurugenzi hawa hawapaswi kabisa kuendelea kuwa wanachama wa chama cho chote cha siasa wala kujihusisha na shughuli zo zote za vyama vya siasa. Na hili liko kwenye sheria za utumishi wa umma. Hata Ma RAS na watumishi wote wa umma wanapaswa kisheria kuwa hivyo pamoja wanajeshi (all civil servants and millitary servants).

Tangia nchi yetu ipate uhuru toka kwa ukoloni wa kiingereza mfumo wetu wa Tume ya Uchaguzi umekuwa ukiwatumia wakurugenzi hawa kama wasimamizi wa uchaguzi kwenye maeneo yao. Wao pamoja na Mwenyekiti wa Tume ya Uchaguzi huteuliwa na mkuu wa nchi ambaye pia ni rais wa serikali ya JMT na amiri mkuu wa majeshi ya JMT. Na hii ni kwa mujibu wa Katiba. Sheria za nchi zinawataka wateule hawa wa rais, mara baada ya teuzi zao kuachana kabisa na vyama vya siasa. Hao waliobainika katika kesi hiyo ya Wangwe vs AG kuendelea kujihusisha na vyama vya siasa (CCM) baada ya teuzi zao, wanapaswa kuchukuliwa hatua kali za kisheria pamoja na kutengua ukurugenzi wao mara moja.

Madhara ya kuahirisha utekelezaji wa mara moja wa mabadiliko ya mfumo wa uchaguzi hayapo kwani mfumo huo umekuwepo siku zote na wnanchi walishauzoea. Serikali ipewe muda wa kutosha kufanya mabadiliko yanayokusudiwa ikihusisha wadau wote. Hata kwenye hiyo kesi ya Mtikila vs AG kuhusiana na mgombea binafsi, hata baada ya Mtikila kushinda kesi hiyo ya kikatiba katika mahakama kuu na mahakama ya rufaa utekelezaji wake hadi leo bado haujafanyika. Inasubiri labda katiba mpya. Hii ya Fatuma /Wangwe vs AG, great thinkers hawadhani kama itafanikiwa.

Huyo aliyewateua na ambaye ungependa atengue mara moja uteuzi wa "baadhi" ya wakurugenzi, ndiye aliyesema haya, "Nikuteue mimi, nikupe mshahara, nikupe gari ya kutembelea, halafu umtangaze wa upinzani". Mkuu, fikiria hayo maneno kwa kina na ikibidi utafute kisiki kilichotufanya watanzania tujikwae na kushituka, hivyo kupitia Bob Wangwe na Fatuma Karume, kufanya hicho kinachoendelea. You can't just be looking on one side of the coin, have a look on the other side as well.

 

[Zakaria Lang'o]

Ndugu Matoja wala hujakosea kuleta hoja yako hiyo kwenye jukwaa hili la great thinkers wa kila aina ili kuweza kupata maono ya kuiboresha.

Kwanza tusitake kuwa watumwa wa hiyo english legal language/jargons. Tena ingependeza ungeweka swahili version ya hivyo vipengele vya sheria ulivyovinukuu. Sheria zinatungwa na wananchi kwa ajili yao kupitia kwa wawakilishi wao bungeni na ambao wengi wao hawajui wala hawana sababu ya kujua hiyo lugha ya waingereza. Huwaachia wanasheria kuwaandikia hizo sheria walizokubaliana zitungwe. Huandikwa kwa lugha zote mbili - kiingereza na kiswahili.

Kazi ya mahakama ni kufafanua hizo sheria. Kazi ya mahakama si kufanya ukalimali wa kilichoandikwa kwenye hizo sheria - yaani language interpretation. Kazi ya mahakama ni kufanya uchambuzi yakinifu wa malengo ya hizo sheria na kutoa maamuzi.

Tunatarajia mahakama ya rufaa itafanya uchambuzi yakinifu wa malengo ya hivyo vipengele vya sheria ulivyovinukuu kuhusu uahirishaji wa utekelezaji wa hiyo hukumu ya mahakama kuu. Lengo la hivyo vifungu ni kuwa kama utekelezaji wa hiyo hukumu unaweza kuleta madhara kwa upande mojawapo wa hizo pande mbili, basi utekelezaji wake huahirishwa baada tu ya upande mmoja kukata rufaa. Hiyo ndiyo wanasomi wetu wameiandika kama "continous breach or personal injury".

Mwanasheria mkuu wa serikali amekata rufaa kwa sababu utekelezaji wa hukumu hiyo ndani ya kipindi kifupi haitawezekana bila kuleta madhara makubwa kwa taifa na wananchi wote kwa jumla. Mfumo wa Tume ya Uchaguzi hauwezi kubadilishwa ndani ya muda mfupi. Inahitaji maandalizi thabiti hususani ya kibajeti na kubadilisha sheria zetu. Ili kubadili mfumo huu mara moja mwananchi atapaswa kutozwa kodi zaidi za kuwezesha kuanzisha na kuendesha mfumo huo mpya. Haya ndiyo madhara ya kutekeleza hukumu hiyo mara moja.

Siyo kwamba AG na wananchi walio wengi hawakubaliani na hukumu ya mahakama kuu kwamba wakurugenzi wa wilaya (baadhi) wanaoendelea kuwa wanachama wa vyama vya siasa huku wakiwa ni wateule wa Tume ya Uchaguzi kama wasimamizi wa uchaguzi katika maeneo yao, ni uvunjifu wa katiba ya nchi. Laa haswa. Wakurugenzi hawa hawapaswi kabisa kuendelea kuwa wanachama wa chama cho chote cha siasa wala kujihusisha na shughuli zo zote za vyama vya siasa. Na hili liko kwenye sheria za utumishi wa umma. Hata Ma RAS na watumishi wote wa umma wanapaswa kisheria kuwa hivyo pamoja wanajeshi (all civil servants and millitary servants).

Tangia nchi yetu ipate uhuru toka kwa ukoloni wa kiingereza mfumo wetu wa Tume ya Uchaguzi umekuwa ukiwatumia wakurugenzi hawa kama wasimamizi wa uchaguzi kwenye maeneo yao. Wao pamoja na Mwenyekiti wa Tume ya Uchaguzi huteuliwa na mkuu wa nchi ambaye pia ni rais wa serikali ya JMT na amiri mkuu wa majeshi ya JMT. Na hii ni kwa mujibu wa Katiba. Sheria za nchi zinawataka wateule hawa wa rais, mara baada ya teuzi zao kuachana kabisa na vyama vya siasa. Hao waliobainika katika kesi hiyo ya Wangwe vs AG kuendelea kujihusisha na vyama vya siasa (CCM) baada ya teuzi zao, wanapaswa kuchukuliwa hatua kali za kisheria pamoja na kutengua ukurugenzi wao mara moja.

Madhara ya kuahirisha utekelezaji wa mara moja wa mabadiliko ya mfumo wa uchaguzi hayapo kwani mfumo huo umekuwepo siku zote na wnanchi walishauzoea. Serikali ipewe muda wa kutosha kufanya mabadiliko yanayokusudiwa ikihusisha wadau wote. Hata kwenye hiyo kesi ya Mtikila vs AG kuhusiana na mgombea binafsi, hata baada ya Mtikila kushinda kesi hiyo ya kikatiba katika mahakama kuu na mahakama ya rufaa utekelezaji wake hadi leo bado haujafanyika. Inasubiri labda katiba mpya. Hii ya Fatuma /Wangwe vs AG, great thinkers hawadhani kama itafanikiwa.

Unaweza ukaonekana kuwa sahihi, lakini tutasemaje hakukuwa na madhara wakati Kuna watu wengi sana nchi hii wameumizwa kwenye chaguzi zilizopita kwa sababu tu wasimamizi hawa wengi wao wameonekana kufanya vitendo vinavyoondoa imani ya wapiga kura katika mfumo mzima wa usimamizi.
Kwa kifupi ni kuwa athari ni kubwa katika hesabu ya "Kura" ya mwananchi kuliko gharama na ufupi wa muda. Pili hoja ya serikali kusuasua katika utekelezaji wa hukumu ya kesi ya Mtikila hata baada ya Serikali kupewa nafasi ikakaa kimya hadi leo, hivyo inaweza ikasaidia kwenye maamuzi ya suala hili. Kinachotakiwa ni kuidhihirishia Mahakama ya Rufaa pasipo Shaka kuwa serikali inatumia vigezo vya fedha na muda kama kichaka cha kutoheshimu na kutekeleza maamuzi ya mahakama.
Serikali inayotumia mabilioni kurudia chaguzi za hovyo itadaije haina fedha ya kutekeleza Jambo kubwa linaloathiri Wananchi kwa kuwawekea wasimamizi wa uchaguzi walio kinyume Cha sheria na Katiba!!!? Maana mwisho wa siku viongozi wanaokuwa wamepatikana wanakuwa ni batili.

 

[chase amante]

Tuwaachie malawyer

 

[Ng'wale]

Unaweza ukaonekana kuwa sahihi, lakini tutasemaje hakukuwa na madhara wakati Kuna watu wengi sana nchi hii wameumizwa kwenye chaguzi zilizopita kwa sababu tu wasimamizi hawa wengi wao wameonekana kufanya vitendo vinavyoondoa imani ya wapiga kura katika mfumo mzima wa usimamizi.
Kwa kifupi ni kuwa athari ni kubwa katika hesabu ya "Kura" ya mwananchi kuliko gharama na ufupi wa muda. Pili hoja ya serikali kusuasua katika utekelezaji wa hukumu ya kesi ya Mtikila hata baada ya Serikali kupewa nafasi ikakaa kimya hadi leo, hivyo inaweza ikasaidia kwenye maamuzi ya suala hili. Kinachotakiwa ni kuidhihirishia Mahakama ya Rufaa pasipo Shaka kuwa serikali inatumia vigezo vya fedha na muda kama kichaka cha kutoheshimu na kutekeleza maamuzi ya mahakama.
Serikali inayotumia mabilioni kurudia chaguzi za hovyo itadaije haina fedha ya kutekeleza Jambo kubwa linaloathiri Wananchi kwa kuwawekea wasimamizi wa uchaguzi walio kinyume Cha sheria na Katiba!!!? Maana mwisho wa siku viongozi wanaokuwa wamepatikana wanakuwa ni batili.

Hoja imekaa vizuri. Ifike wakati watu wajue jinsi siku zinavyosogea, watanzania wanazidi kutoka gizani. CCM ijijenge zaidi kuwa na uwezo wa kupambana kwenye uwanja ulio sawa. Referees wawe huru na si ilivyo sasa.

 

[Mindi]

Mkuu Matojo Cosatta, Ahsante sana kwa uzi wako huu murua. Mimi siyo mwanasheria, ila napenda mambo ya kisheria, na nimefurahia sana Novels za Perry Mason, kwa mfano. Lakini niseme tu kwamba nimefurahi sana kusoma andiko lako, pamoja na hiyo "Technical Language", inapendeza siku moja moja tunapata vitu kama hivi. Pia hiyo Conclusion yako, haipo moja kwa moja lakini kama ulivyosema, kama mtu anasoma kwa makini ataelewa vizuri umehitimisha kitu gani. Tumezoea matusi na maneno ya kejeli za reja reja humu jamvini. hivyo tunapopata chakula cha ubongo kama hiki, ni burudani tosha kabisa. Hongera sana Mkuu!

 

[Mindi]

uongo mbaya

hapo nimeelewa Fatuma Karume anafunga harusi na Chacha Wangwe

huko kwingine munisaidie

Yaani wewe ndio wale ambao akiona tu mwanamke na mwanaume wanashirikiana kufanya kitu, basi kuna ndoa au tendo la ndoa!! hiyo ni hatari

 

[YEHODAYA]

Nimesubili maoni yako kwa hamu sana.

Wakili unatumia email ya Gmail huna
hata ka website utumie email ya firm?

 

[YEHODAYA]

Matojo, as much as you have tried to go forth and back and taking into account the fact that this forum is read by many people who might not be lawyers like yourself and some of us who can understand your submissions, you've failed to conclude directly as to who is right on their positions between the AG and Fatima Karume.

Next time you need to be smart enough!!

Sorry AG kakata rufaa Ni sahihi kujadili kesi iliyoko mahakamani mitandaoni kama alivyofanya huyu wakili? Sio kuingilia uhuru wa mahakama?