Hukumu ya mgombea binafsi hii hapa (AG vs Mtikila)

[Ngambo Ngali]

The judges said that. "Thus the issue of independent candidates is political and not legal "

But

Does this hold water?

Thomas

The basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act section 13 (1)inasema:

(1) Subject to this section, in making decisions in any suit, if the High Court comes to the conclusion that the basic rights, freedoms and duties concerned have been unlawfully denied or that grounds exist for their protection by an order, it shall have power to make all such orders as shall be necessary and appropriate to secure the applicant the enjoyment of the basic rights, freedoms and duties conferred or imposed on him under the provisions of sections 12 to 29 of the Constitution.

Ibara ya 21 ya Katiba inasema:

(1) Bila ya kuathiri masharti ya ibara ya 5, ya 39 na ya 67 ya Katiba hii na ya sheria za nchi kuhusiana na masharti ya kuchagua na kuchaguliwa, au kuteua na kuteuliwa kushiriki katika shughuli za utawala wa nchi, kila raia wa Jamhuri ya Muungano anayo haki ya kushiriki katika shughuli za utawala wa nchi, ama moja kwa moja au kwa kupitia wawakilishi waliochaguliwa na wananchi kwa hiari yao, kwa kuzingatia utaratibu uliowekwa na sheria au kwa mujibu wa sheria.

Ibara ya ya 20 (4) inamalizia:
(4) Bila ya kuathiri sheria za nchi zinazohusika ni marufuku kwa mtu yeyote kulazimishwa kujiunga na chama chochote au shirika lolote, au kwa chama chochote au cha siasa kukataliwa kusajiliwa kwa sababu tu ya itikadi au falsafa yake.

Jamani kuna siasa hapo? Je mahakama haina mamlaka kweli au ndo mahakama ya juu inaleta hadithi za pilato za kunawa mikono badala ya kuamua suala lililopo mbele yao?

 

[Devils Advocate]

The basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act section 13 (1)inasema:

(1) Subject to this section, in making decisions in any suit, if the High Court comes to the conclusion that the basic rights, freedoms and duties concerned have been unlawfully denied or that grounds exist for their protection by an order, it shall have power to make all such orders as shall be necessary and appropriate to secure the applicant the enjoyment of the basic rights, freedoms and duties conferred or imposed on him under the provisions of sections 12 to 29 of the Constitution.

Ibara ya 21 ya Katiba inasema:

(1) Bila ya kuathiri masharti ya ibara ya 5, ya 39 na ya 67 ya Katiba hii na ya sheria za nchi kuhusiana na masharti ya kuchagua na kuchaguliwa, au kuteua na kuteuliwa kushiriki katika shughuli za utawala wa nchi, kila raia wa Jamhuri ya Muungano anayo haki ya kushiriki katika shughuli za utawala wa nchi, ama moja kwa moja au kwa kupitia wawakilishi waliochaguliwa na wananchi kwa hiari yao, kwa kuzingatia utaratibu uliowekwa na sheria au kwa mujibu wa sheria.

Ibara ya ya 20 (4) inamalizia:
(4) Bila ya kuathiri sheria za nchi zinazohusika ni marufuku kwa mtu yeyote kulazimishwa kujiunga na chama chochote au shirika lolote, au kwa chama chochote au cha siasa kukataliwa kusajiliwa kwa sababu tu ya itikadi au falsafa yake.

Jamani kuna siasa hapo? Je mahakama haina mamlaka kweli au ndo mahakama ya juu inaleta hadithi za pilato za kunawa mikono badala ya kuamua suala lililopo mbele yao?

Well stated but the issue before them was that the impugned right was enshrined in the constitution. The biggest problem is was the court empowered to change a provision of the constitution? Its this problem which the court was called on to decide. Sio kwamba wao hawajui kuwa hiyo haki imebinywa?

 

[Ngambo Ngali]

Well stated but the issue before them was that the impugned right was enshrined in the constitution. The biggest problem is was the court empowered to change a provision of the constitution? Its this problem which the court was called on to decide. Sio kwamba wao hawajui kuwa hiyo haki imebinywa?

Sure, sure just right but sincerly is it safe to say that the court cannot declare a constitutional provision unsconstitutional. Lets assume today the parliament sits and decides to delete the whole of part two of the constitution which creates the Office of the President and in doing so the procedure as provided by article 98 was complied with, will this court have the guts to rule as they ruled yesterday? That the court cannot interfere because it is not legal? Can the parliaments power to ammend the constitutionbe said to be unlimited?

Why was the court blind of this serious issue leo mgombea binafsi kesho bunge linaweza kufuta nafasi ya Rais tutakimbilia wapi. Maamuzi ya mahakama yanatakiwa yazingatie matakwa ya leo, kesho na keshokutwa.

 

[Tonge]

Kwa tafsiri yangu ndogo, mahakama imelirudisha shauri hili bungeni liamuliwe kisiasa kwani wanajua shauri hili la mgombea bianfsi halipo kwenye ratiba ya vikao vya bunge na haliwezi kuamnuliwa kwenye kikao hiki so ishu hii itakuwa kwa 2015 ndio labda mgombea binafsi atakuruhusiwa, tafsiri kuu ambayo hata jana baadhi ya wabunge waliohojiwa na TBC1 waligawanyika, wale wa upinzani walisema hawakubaliani na mahakama kulipeleka suala hili bungeni kwani ni kuchelesha uamuzi wake lakini wale wa CCM akiwepo Sophia Simba ameusifu uamuzi wa mahakama kulileta suala hili bungeni. Hii inamaana wapizani wangependa awepo mgombea binafsi na CCM hawataki awepo, sasa basi hata itakapo fika siku ya wabunge kupiga kura za ndio au hapana ni wazi kuwa CCM watashinda kwa kusema HAPANA kwa kuwa wapo wengi bungeni kuliko watakao sema NDIO ambao ni wa upinzani walio wachache bungeni. Napata wakati mgumu kuona kumbe hata majaji wetu ni wale wale wanaotaka CCM isipate upinzani kutoka mgombea binafsi kwani ni mara ngapi wametoa uamuzi kwenye mambo ya kisiasa mahakamani washidwe hili? "TANZANIA ZAIDI YA UIJUAVYO"

 

[Buchanan]

Nimesikitishwa sana na kauli zifuatazo za Mahakama ya Rufani:

1. At no time in the history of this country we have had sour relationship between Executive and the Judiciary!
Hapa tunapewa somo kwamba wakubwa LAZIMA waheshimiane, Sheria zimewekwa pembeni, wakubwa waliowekana madarakani LAZIMA wapeane HESHIMA!

2. Courts are NOT the Custodians of the will of the People. That is the property of the elected Members of Parliament!
Nilikuwa sijui kama Mahakama hazifuati matakwa ya wananchi na ni kazi za wabunge pekee! Jana ndio nimefumbuka macho ndugu zangu kupitia kesi hii! Swali la kujiuliza, hizi Sheria zimetungwa kwa ajili ya mawe au miti? Napata shida sana!

3. Tanzania Courts exercise calculated restraint to AVOID MEDDLING in counstituencies of other two pillars of state!
Hii kauli utafikiri haitoki kwa Mwanasheria, ni afadhali kama ingetolewa na vijana wavuta bangi vijiweni! Kwani hapa suala lilikuwa ni kuepusha malumbano au kulinda haki za wananchi za kugombea? Naona maruwe ruwe kwenye hili. Jopo la Majaji saba (7) walipoteza fedha zetu bure kutuletea kauli za KISIASA!

4. The issue of independent candidates IS POLITICAL AND NOT LEGAL!
Hapa Jopo la Majaji saba (7) ndio limetoa kituko cha mwaka! Kama suala la mgombea binafsi SI LA KISHERIA kwa nini walilipokea Mahakamani? Mbona katika ukurasa wa 19 Mahakama ya Rufani imedai kwamba Mahakama Kuu ya Tanzania ilikuwa na mamlaka (Jurisdiction) ya kusikiliza shauri hili? Sasa Mahakama Kuu ilikuwaje na Mamlaka ya kusikiliza suala la kisiasa? Hapa nimepata homa kabisa kuhusu Hukumu ya ajabu ya Mahakama ya Rufani!

 

[The Dreamer]

kesi husikilizwa na majaji wengi zaidi ili kuondoa mikingano hasa kama kesi ni sensitive. Zipo kesi chache sana zilizowahi kusikilizwa hivi na hii ni mojawapo. The only problem hapa ni what value did the 7 justices (not judges because they are from the court of appeal) add? its a little disappointing what the judges decided.I never expected a unanimous decision. I thought there could be a dissenting judgment or much more elaboration or looking at the judgment from another angle.

You appear not to be aware of kinds of justices we have in the Court of Appeal and lower courts. They are either politicians or diploma holders in Law who are friends to politicians...no wonder the judgement was unanimous and concluded in a heartbreaking way...what the COURT of APPEAL decided and that will have AUTHORITY is that THE RIGHT TO RIGHTS OF TANZANIANS ARE POLITICAL AND NOT LEGAL. In other words, if the parliament enacts a law that requires the thirdborn in every family to be killed immediately as he is born and as long as it was enacted procedural...No CITEZEN can appeal against it since the only thing the court of appeal can do is advice the government. A pity moment in the history of our country and damn the so called *Learned Justices*

 

[The Dreamer]

Nimesikitishwa sana na kauli zifuatazo za Mahakama ya Rufani:

1. At no time in the history of this country we have had sour relationship between Executive and the Judiciary!
Hapa tunapewa somo kwamba wakubwa LAZIMA waheshimiane, Sheria zimewekwa pembeni, wakubwa waliowekana madarakani LAZIMA wapeane HESHIMA!

2. Courts are NOT the Custodians of the will of the People. That is the property of the elected Members of Parliament!
Nilikuwa sijui kama Mahakama hazifuati matakwa ya wananchi na ni kazi za wabunge pekee! Jana ndio nimefumbuka macho ndugu zangu kupitia kesi hii! Swali la kujiuliza, hizi Sheria zimetungwa kwa ajili ya mawe au miti? Napata shida sana!

3. Tanzania Courts exercise calculated restraint to AVOID MEDDLING in counstituencies of other two pillars of state!
Hii kauli utafikiri haitoki kwa Mwanasheria, ni afadhali kama ingetolewa na vijana wavuta bangi vijiweni! Kwani hapa suala lilikuwa ni kuepusha malumbano au kulinda haki za wananchi za kugombea? Naona maruwe ruwe kwenye hili. Jopo la Majaji saba (7) walipoteza fedha zetu bure kutuletea kauli za KISIASA!

4. The issue of independent candidates IS POLITICAL AND NOT LEGAL!
Hapa Jopo la Majaji saba (7) ndio limetoa kituko cha mwaka! Kama suala la mgombea binafsi SI LA KISHERIA kwa nini walilipokea Mahakamani? Mbona katika ukurasa wa 19 Mahakama ya Rufani imedai kwamba Mahakama Kuu ya Tanzania ilikuwa na mamlaka (Jurisdiction) ya kusikiliza shauri hili? Sasa Mahakama Kuu ilikuwaje na Mamlaka ya kusikiliza suala la kisiasa? Hapa nimepata homa kabisa kuhusu Hukumu ya ajabu ya Mahakama ya Rufani!

Umechambua vyema...sasa pesa yote walikula ya nini. Wametumia muda mwingi kupitia hoja za Judge Lugakingira kwa maana he was a man of substance. Wao sijui nani atawaquote! If anything, Majaji kama tisa miaka mingi ijayo wataonyesha ukihiyo wa benchi la watu wasiofikiri....Maana inabidi ijitenge na siása na siyo kuwa wanasiasa

 

[WildCard]

Hili limekwisha. JK tayari yuko kwenye kampeni kwa kivuli cha "ziara za Rais" mikoani. Kigoma umeme, barabara bwerere. Hata Zitto kamkubali tunaambiwa. Zitto wa Bungeni sio huyu anayekutana na JK. Tusiendelee kuwaona Majaji wa Rufaa wote 7 hawajui walichokifanya. Maslahi na AMANI ya NCHI kwanza.

 

[mwanakwetu]

Jamni haishangazi sana haya yote yalitegemewa kama alivyosema Mtikila. Majaji wengi wakiongozwa na Jaji Mkuu ni makada wa CCM na kwa kuthibitisha hilo subirini uchaguzi wa 2015 wengi wao watawania ubunge. Hilo lililokaa lilikuwa jopo la wanasiasa saba na ndio maana wamefanikiwa kuichambua hiyo hukumu kisiasa kuliko kisheria. Katika mihimili yote hii mitatu hakuna mwenye uchungu na mwananchi wote wanaangalia maslahi yao binafsi.

 

[Nyunyu]

Uandishi wa habari ni taaluma tegemezi. Ili uwe mwandishi wa habari mzuri ni lazima uwe umesoma vizuri taaluma nyingine pia.

Mkuu Wilcard, wenzetu kila mwandishi wa industry fulani ni mtaalam katika hiyo fani. Kwa hiyo unakuta mwandishi mwenyewe anakuwa na uwezo wa kunyambua habari na kuelezea mada! CNN wanye Dr. Sanjay (sikumbuki vizuri jina) katika habari za kitabibu; Maggy in Finance etc. Waandishi wetu wengi walio katika magazeti, redio na TV zetu ni failures Secondary schools!! Hawana hata fani!!!

Unategemea nini...... Nchi hii kila kitu kinajiendea tu, AKA bora liende!!!

 

[Kamakabuzi]

Ground 1:That the High Court erred in law in proceeding with the
determination of the petition without framing issues.

We, therefore, dismiss this ground of appeal

Ground 2:That the High Court erred in law and in fact by subjecting
the Constitution to International Instruments.

So, we are at one with Mr. Rweyongeza in his reply that reference to
International Human Rights Instruments has been ordained by this Court.
We, therefore, cannot fault their lordships in any way and this ground of
appeal is dismissed, too.

Ground 3: That the High Court erred in law by assuming legislative
powers.
So in conclusion on the above two issues, we wish to make it
very plain that in our view Act 34 of 1994 which amended
Article 21(1) so as to cross refer it to Articles 5, 39 and 67
which introduced into the Constitution, restrictions on
participation of public affairs and the running of the
government to party members only was an infringement on
the fundamental right and that the restriction was
unnecessary and unreasonable, and so did not meet the
test of proportionality. We thus proceed to declare that
the said amendments to Articles 21(1), 39(1)(c) and
67(1)(b) are unconstitutional. (Emphasis is ours.)
This ground fails, too.

Ground 4: That the High Court wrongly assumed jurisdiction in
entertaining the Petition.
So, the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition and ground one (4) is dismissed in its entirety.

Ground 5: That the High Court erred in law in nullifying the provisions
of the Constitution.
Ground one (5) is, therefore, allowed: a court cannot declare an article of the Constitution to be unconstitutional except where the article has not been enacted in accordance with the procedure under Art 98(1)(a) and (b).

In our case, we say that the issue of independent candidates has to be settled by Parliament which has the jurisdiction to amend the Constitution and not the Courts which, as we have found, do not have that jurisdiction.

However, we give a word of advice to both the Attorney General and our
Parliament: The United Nations Human Rights Committee, in paragraph 21 of its General Comment No. 25, of July 12, 1996, said as follows on Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, very similarly worded as Art 23 of the American Convention and our Art 21:
The right of persons to stand for election should not be
limited unreasonably by requiring candidates to be members of
parties or of specific parties.
Tanzania is known for our good record on human rights and particularly our militancy for the right to self determination and hence our involvement in the liberation struggle. We should seriously ponder that comment from a Committee of the United Nations, that is, the whole world.

Wapendwa, hayo ndiyo maamuzi ya mahakama tena ya rufaa chini ya jaji kiongozi mwenyewe!
Kimsingi wamekubaliana na maamuzi yote ya mahakama kuu kama unavyoweza kuona grounds 1 – 4.
Wanakubali kuwa kuna conflict katika vifungu vya katiba, kwamba marekebisho ya katiba yaliyomwondoa mgombea huru yalikiuka haki za binadamu zilizo ndani ya katiba yenyewe na zilizo ndani ya hati za kimataifa ambazo Tanzania imezikubali na kutia sahihi nk;
Walichoogopa kufanya ni kusema kuwa marekebisho hayo yalikiuka katiba – yaani eti kwa kuwa marekebisho yalipitishwa kwa taratibu zilizowekwa kikatiba, japo yameleta mgongano katika vifungu vya katiba hiyohiyo, basi ni sawa, na mahakama haiwezi kutengua! Hiki ndicho kichekesho kabisa. Majaji 7 akiwemo jaji kiongozi mnajifunga kitanzi wenyewe? Kwa hiyo bunge likifuata utaratibu likafuta hata kuwepo kwa ofisi ya rais wa Jamhuri ya Muungano wa TZ, basi hata mahakama haziwezi kuhoji? Hakika huu ni upuuzi!
Upuuzi mwingine huu hapa: Eti wakiruhusu mgombe huru hawajui itaishia wapi – litakuja suala la umri, kuzaliwa nk:

Where will we stop? The argument is that
the provisions of Art 21 have been abridged since a candidate has to
belong to and be sponsored by a political party. The next complaint will be why should a parliamentary candidate be required to be of the age of 21 years and a presidential candidate 40 years? Why not be the age of majority of 18 years? Also why should the presidential candidate be a citizen born in Tanzania? Why do we exclude those born outside the Republic simply because their parents were faithfully serving the Republic outside the country? Are all these not abridging Art 21?
Yaani majaji hawaoni pia kuwa kulazimisha rais awe wa miaka 40 linaweza kuwa ni tatizo?, hawaoni sababu kwanini katiba inawakataza waliozaliwa nje ya TZ – jibu ni rahisi tu – hawa wanakuwa na uraia wa kule walikozaliwa nasi hatujaruhusu uraia wa nchi mbili
Tunaweza kusema mengi, lakini la msingi ni kuwa mahakama imejitia kitanzi. Kwa maana akiingia dikteta akainfluence au akalazimisha kuwa na bunge lake na bunge hilo likapitisha vifungu kwa kutumia theluthi mbili, basi mahakama itakaa kimya tu – maana pia hakuna ambapo mahakama inzweza kuhoji uhuru wa uchaguzi!

 

[Ngambo Ngali]

Nimesikitishwa sana na kauli zifuatazo za Mahakama ya Rufani:

1. At no time in the history of this country we have had sour relationship between Executive and the Judiciary!
Hapa tunapewa somo kwamba wakubwa LAZIMA waheshimiane, Sheria zimewekwa pembeni, wakubwa waliowekana madarakani LAZIMA wapeane HESHIMA!

2. Courts are NOT the Custodians of the will of the People. That is the property of the elected Members of Parliament!
Nilikuwa sijui kama Mahakama hazifuati matakwa ya wananchi na ni kazi za wabunge pekee! Jana ndio nimefumbuka macho ndugu zangu kupitia kesi hii! Swali la kujiuliza, hizi Sheria zimetungwa kwa ajili ya mawe au miti? Napata shida sana!

3. Tanzania Courts exercise calculated restraint to AVOID MEDDLING in counstituencies of other two pillars of state!
Hii kauli utafikiri haitoki kwa Mwanasheria, ni afadhali kama ingetolewa na vijana wavuta bangi vijiweni! Kwani hapa suala lilikuwa ni kuepusha malumbano au kulinda haki za wananchi za kugombea? Naona maruwe ruwe kwenye hili. Jopo la Majaji saba (7) walipoteza fedha zetu bure kutuletea kauli za KISIASA!

4. The issue of independent candidates IS POLITICAL AND NOT LEGAL!
Hapa Jopo la Majaji saba (7) ndio limetoa kituko cha mwaka! Kama suala la mgombea binafsi SI LA KISHERIA kwa nini walilipokea Mahakamani? Mbona katika ukurasa wa 19 Mahakama ya Rufani imedai kwamba Mahakama Kuu ya Tanzania ilikuwa na mamlaka (Jurisdiction) ya kusikiliza shauri hili? Sasa Mahakama Kuu ilikuwaje na Mamlaka ya kusikiliza suala la kisiasa? Hapa nimepata homa kabisa kuhusu Hukumu ya ajabu ya Mahakama ya Rufani!

it goes down to one thing, mahakama ina kauwoga ka aina fulani.

 

[The Dreamer]

Halafu Mtikila amepewa dokezo juu ya mahakama ya Kadhi. Jamaa wamequote ruling ya uko kenya

The High Court of Kenya has the same view as expressed in a very recent
decision in Jesse Kamau & 25 Others v. A. G., [2010] eKLR where 24 clergy
men of various religious institutions challenged the inclusion of Kadhis'
Courts in the Draft Constitution. In their final orders three judges of the
High Court ruled:
As regards paragraph 2 of the prayers we find and hold that
sections 66 and 82 are inconsistent with each other, and
that section 66 is superfluous but it is not the court's role to
expunge it. It is the role of Parliament and the citizenry in a
referendum.
41
So, if there are two or more articles or portions of articles which cannot be
harmonized, then it is Parliament which will deal with the matter and not
the Court unless that power is expressly given by the Constitution, which,
we have categorically said, it has not.

 

[Ngambo Ngali]

Tunaweza kusema mengi, lakini la msingi ni kuwa mahakama imejitia kitanzi. Kwa maana akiingia dikteta akainfluence au akalazimisha kuwa na bunge lake na bunge hilo likapitisha vifungu kwa kutumia theluthi mbili, basi mahakama itakaa kimya tu – maana pia hakuna ambapo mahakama inzweza kuhoji uhuru wa uchaguzi!

Fikiria this scenario, come October general elections and say CUF gets 1/3 of the seats in parliament and CHADEMA also gets 1/3 they form an alliance with say TLP, NCCR Mageuzi and UDP, they opt their right to nominate their MPs through special seats and that will be more than 2/3 enough to make a constitutional ammendment. The President, as synovate reports insists or wants us to believe, comes from CCM as he is popular but the MPs are from the opposition. Dont you see that there is a danger of removing the president from his office by simply deleting the office of the president from the constitution by way of ammendment through a bill of parliament.

Mahakama imeua demokrasia haijajitia kitanzani, inatupeleka kusiko kabisa.

 

[Devils Advocate]

Sure, sure just right but sincerly is it safe to say that the court cannot declare a constitutional provision unsconstitutional. Lets assume today the parliament sits and decides to delete the whole of part two of the constitution which creates the Office of the President and in doing so the procedure as provided by article 98 was complied with, will this court have the guts to rule as they ruled yesterday? That the court cannot interfere because it is not legal? Can the parliaments power to ammend the constitutionbe said to be unlimited?

Why was the court blind of this serious issue leo mgombea binafsi kesho bunge linaweza kufuta nafasi ya Rais tutakimbilia wapi. Maamuzi ya mahakama yanatakiwa yazingatie matakwa ya leo, kesho na keshokutwa.

Ngambo Ngali,
If you have read the judgement carefully that is what the judges are saying. They are bassically saying that unlike other coutreis such as turkey, south aftica and others our parliament without necesarily consulting the people can change almost everything in our constituion including removing that part which provides for the presdiency and can even remove themselves by dissolving the parliament. This is the fear which is echoed thoughtout the judgement. (please read it thoroughly first and then read it between the lines with an eagle eye of a keen lawyer).

This judgemnt has lots of repercusions. What the judges are saying (behind the curtains i presume so that they dont sound political) is that the consituion as it is now is seriously flawed and needs to involve people in its eventual framing. By shaking and doubting the foundations of the constituions which we thought were enshrienrd (See the courts criticisms of Prof. Shvji's article in the Tanzania Lawyer) then the Court of Appeal is saying we dont have a well thought out constituition and it needs review and not only on independednt candidate but on other areeas.

This is how i see the judgement and i am sure this is how it must be constued. It has more implications than what Mtikila asked for.

Forgive my english people. I am writing quickly on an empty stomach.

 

[Buchanan]

it goes down to one thing, mahakama ina kauwoga ka aina fulani.

Hawa Majaji saba (7) sijui hawapitii Hukumu zao wenyewe au namna gani? Wanapotuambia kwamba "at no time in the history of this country we have had sour relationship between Executive and the Judiciary" huku wakijua kwamba Serikali ilishawahi kulumbana na Mahakama na pia kulihusisha Bunge huko nyuma na Mahakama ya Rufani iliilalamikia sana Serikali katika kesi ya Attorney General v. Rev. Christopher Mtikila [1998] TLR 100 (CA). Kisanga, Ag. C. J., alikuwa na haya ya kusema kama by the way (Obiter) katika ukurasa wa 101:

"The Government drew the Judiciary into conflict with Parliament by asking the two organs to deal with the same matter simultaneously, ending into two conflicting results: the Court upholding the right of private candidates and Parliament barring that right; such a state is regrettable and udesirable, and is incompatible with the smooth adminstration of justice."


Au hawa Majaji walitaka Serikali na Mahakama warushiane ngumi kwanza ndio iwe "sour relationship?" Hawaoni kwamba Serikali mara nyingi imedharau maamuzi ya Mahakama na wanatumia "the ends justifies the means" kupata wanachotaka?

 

[Devils Advocate]

Fikiria this scenario, come October general elections and say CUF gets 1/3 of the seats in parliament and CHADEMA also gets 1/3 they form an alliance with say TLP, NCCR Mageuzi and UDP, they opt their right to nominate their MPs through special seats and that will be more than 2/3 enough to make a constitutional ammendment. The President, as synovate reports insists or wants us to believe, comes from CCM as he is popular but the MPs are from the opposition. Dont you see that there is a danger of removing the president from his office by simply deleting the office of the president from the constitution by way of ammendment through a bill of parliament.

Mahakama imeua demokrasia haijajitia kitanzani, inatupeleka kusiko kabisa.

This is a very interesting scenario and i think the governmnet is not anticipating that becaise its not going to happen in the next 10 years (or so they think).

The most probable scenario is that of Zanzibar where we see a possible unity government and a possible opposition president or chief Minister. What will be the relationship between the Zanzibar president or Chief Minister vis a vis Union Government. Willl they attend baraza la Mawaziri wa Muungano? Will they sit in the National security Council and decide on matters related to abuse of human rights?

So many questions will be brought to light. Only time will tell.

 

[Devils Advocate]

You appear not to be aware of kinds of justices we have in the Court of Appeal and lower courts. They are either politicians or diploma holders in Law who are friends to politicians...no wonder the judgement was unanimous and concluded in a heartbreaking way...what the COURT of APPEAL decided and that will have AUTHORITY is that THE RIGHT TO RIGHTS OF TANZANIANS ARE POLITICAL AND NOT LEGAL. In other words, if the parliament enacts a law that requires the thirdborn in every family to be killed immediately as he is born and as long as it was enacted procedural...No CITEZEN can appeal against it since the only thing the court of appeal can do is advice the government. A pity moment in the history of our country and damn the so called *Learned Justices*

I just hope you are not a lawyer because i find your comments offensive and with due respect misplaced. You cant be a judge if you dont hold an LLB degree. Thats the basic prerequisite (i know only justice Mbarouk who holds no LLB but has a Masters in law). Before you become a judge you must have served as a lawyer for a considerable number of years.

If you really want to create a useful discussion dont criticise competencies of the judges because you will fail. Use logic as we lawyers do and you will sail through.

 

[Devils Advocate]

Hawa Majaji saba (7) sijui hawapitii Hukumu zao wenyewe au namna gani? Wanapotuambia kwamba "at no time in the history of this country we have had sour relationship between Executive and the Judiciary" huku wakijua kwamba Serikali ilishawahi kulumbana na Mahakama na pia kulihusisha Bunge huko nyuma na Mahakama ya Rufani iliilalamikia sana Serikali katika kesi ya Attorney General v. Rev. Christopher Mtikila [1998] TLR 100 (CA). Kisanga, Ag. C. J., alikuwa na haya ya kusema kama by the way (Obiter) katika ukurasa wa 101:

"The Government drew the Judiciary into conflict with Parliament by asking the two organs to deal with the same matter simultaneously, ending into two conflicting results: the Court upholding the right of private candidates and Parliament barring that right; such a state is regrettable and udesirable, and is incompatible with the smooth adminstration of justice."


Au hawa Majaji walitaka Serikali na Mahakama warushiane ngumi kwanza ndio iwe "sour relationship?" Hawaoni kwamba Serikali mara nyingi imedharau maamuzi ya Mahakama na wanatumia "the ends justifies the means" kupata wanachotaka?

as they rightly noted in the kisanga judgement the conflict was with parliament. but i think it was a very bold political statement while we who are working with them know the judiciary and the executive have always been at loggerheads.

 

[Pape]

Siasa za bongo ni za kuumizana vichwa tu!