Ibara ya 30:5


Mzee Mwanakijiji

Mzee Mwanakijiji

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
31,875
Likes
8,032
Points
280
Mzee Mwanakijiji

Mzee Mwanakijiji

Platinum Member
Joined Mar 10, 2006
31,875 8,032 280
Ya Katiba ya Jamhuri ya Muungano Inasema hivi:

(5) Endapo katika shauri lolote inadaiwa kwamba sheria
yoyote iliyotungwa au hatua yoyote iliyochukuliwa na Serikali au
mamlaka nyingine inafuta au inakatiza haki, uhuru na wajibu
muhimu zitokanazo na ibara ya 12 hadi 29 za Katiba hii, na
Mahakama Kuu inaridhika kwamba sheria au hatua inayohusika,
kwa kiwango inachopingana na Katiba ni batili au kinyume cha
Katiba basi Mahakama Kuu ikiona kuwa yafaa au hali au masilahi
ya jamii yahitaji hivyo, badala ya kutamka kuwa sheria au hatua
hiyo ni batili, itakuwa na uwezo wa kuamua kutoa fursa kwa ajili
ya Serikali au mamlaka nyingine yoyote inayohusika kurekebisha
hitilafu iliyopo katika sheria inayotuhumiwa au hatua inayohusika
katika muda na kwa jinsi itakavyotajwa na Mahakama Kuu, na
sheria hiyo au hatua inayohusika itaendelea kuhesabiwa kuwa ni
halali hadi ama marekebisho yatakapofanywa au muda
uliowekwa na Mahakama Kuu utakapokwisha
, mradi muda mfupi
zaidi ndio uzingatiwe.
Wazo:

- Je, Mahakama ikisema sheria fulani ni Batili na kinyume cha Katiba sheria hiyo inatenguka mara moja na haina nguvu?

- Je, Neno "badala" linapotumika hapo juu ni sawa au neno "baada" ndilo lingetumika.

- Kama Mahakama inasema sheria fulani ni kinyume na Katiba kwa misingi gani sheria hiyo inaendelea kuwa halali?
 
Mag3

Mag3

JF-Expert Member
Joined
May 31, 2008
Messages
9,912
Likes
8,198
Points
280
Mag3

Mag3

JF-Expert Member
Joined May 31, 2008
9,912 8,198 280
Kwa ustaarabu wa dunia ni kuwa mahakama ikitamka sheria fulani ni batili na ni kinyume cha katiba, kimsingi sheria hiyo haitakiwi kuendelea kuwa ni halali kwa sababu katiba ndiyo sheria mama. Sheria yoyote inayopigana na katiba na ikatafsiriwa hivyo na mahakama, haina uhalali tena.

Hata hivyo serikali yetu imelazimisha uwezekano huu kutokana na maamuzi ya bunge ambalo ndilo lenye jukumu la kutunga sheria. Hii imewezekana kirahisi kwa sababu bunge lenyewe miaka yote imekuwa kama "rubber stamp" ya mapendekezo ya serikali. Kuna mifano kadhaa ambapo bunge limeitishwa haraka haraka kuzima maamuzi ya mahakama.

Jambo la pili ni kuwa kwa kukosa bunge la katiba, bunge letu limejichukulia haya madaraka kwa baraka za serikali. Na hii nayo imewezekana kwa sababu maamuzi mazito ya bunge yanatolewa na kundi ndani ya bunge linalojulikana kama kamati ya wabunge wa CCM likiongozwa na mwenyekiti wa CCM ambaye ndiye Raisi wa nchi.

Yote haya yatarekebishwa tu kwa kuandika katiba mpya inayohakikisha hii mihimili mikuu mitatu inatenganiswa - serkali, bunge na mahakama. Kama nitakuwa nimepotea msijali sana - mimi ni injinia siyo mwanasheria.
 
L

Lizy

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
413
Likes
285
Points
80
L

Lizy

JF-Expert Member
Joined Feb 11, 2008
413 285 80
Ya Katiba ya Jamhuri ya Muungano Inasema hivi:



Wazo:

- Je, Mahakama ikisema sheria fulani ni Batili na kinyume cha Katiba sheria hiyo inatenguka mara moja na haina nguvu?

Mwkjj, lets not skip words, Kifungu kinaongelea sheria au hatua zilizochukuliwa. Kwa nilivyoelewa mimi (please correct me if Im wrong), wanaongelea hatua zinazochukuliwa kutokana na sheria husika ndizo zaweza kuwa batili, lets say Sheria no xx , kifungu yy Unyang'anyi, labda sheria hiyo inadai kwamba mtu yeyote akipatikana na kesi za Unyang'anyi, hukumu yake itakuwa kifungo jela kwa miaka thelathini. Then wakati wa uendeshwaji kesi hiyo, in the judgement mtuhumiwa huyo akahukumiwa kunyongwa. That means Sheria ya Unyang'anyi ilikuwa na bado ipo sahihi, ISIPOKUWA hatua zilizochukuliwa (hukumu) ndizo batili (Kunyongwa badala ya 30yrs imprisonment as mentioned ktk sheria husika). In this case, ndo mambo ya appeal yanakuwepo, then Mahakama kuu (Kwa huku Tanzania), baada ya kusikiliza pande zote husika, katika mfano huu, HAITATENGUA SHERIA, BALI ITATENGUA HATUA (hukumu)ZILIZOCHUKULIWA,.

- Je, Neno "badala" linapotumika hapo juu ni sawa au neno "baada" ndilo lingetumika.

Neno badala kama lilivyotumika hapo ni sahihi kabisa. "badala ya kutamka kuwa sheria au hatua
hiyo ni batili, itakuwa na uwezo wa kuamua kutoa fursa kwa ajili
ya Serikali au mamlaka nyingine yoyote inayohusika kurekebisha
hitilafu iliyopo katika sheria inayotuhumiwa au hatua inayohusika
katika muda na kwa jinsi itakavyotajwa na Mahakama Kuu, na
sheria hiyo au hatua inayohusika itaendelea kuhesabiwa kuwa ni
halali hadi ama marekebisho yatakapofanywa au muda
uliowekwa na Mahakama Kuu utakapokwisha" Kwamba sheria mfano Unyang'anyi haiko wazi sana, lakini sio kwamba ni batili. Kumbuka nimetoa mfano kwamba labda sheria ya unyang'anyi hatua/hukumu yake inatakiwa kuwa 30yrs imprisonment, lakini haijaeleza ni unyang'anyi wa aina gani, (nguvu, silaha ama unyang'anyi upi). Hivyo basi, Serikali ama mamlaka inayohusika inaweza kuirekebisha sheria hiyo kwamba sheria xx, kifungu yy Unyang'anyi itakuwa na hatua/hukumu yake let say 10yrs imprisonment, sheria xx kifungu yy (1) Unyang'anyi wa kutumia nguvu,hatua/hukumu 20yrs, sheria xx kifungy yy 1 (1) Unyang'anyi wa kutumia Silaha, hatua 30yrs imprisonmement.

- Kama Mahakama inasema sheria fulani ni kinyume na Katiba kwa misingi gani sheria hiyo inaendelea kuwa halali?

Yeah, sheria ama hatua zitaendelea kuwa halali hadi hapo mabadiliko yatakapofanyika. Kwamba mtu yule alihukumiwa 30yrs kabla ya mabadiliko ya sheria kufanywa (kuchambua kesi za unyang'anyi), ataendelea kutumikia kifungo hicho cha 30yrs, as long as alitenda kosa la unyang'anyi even though wake ulikuwa unyang'anyi wa kutumia nguvu, ambapo kwa sheria mpya angestahili kuwa na 20yrs, instead of 30yrs. Mara nyingi and I think all the time, mabadiliko ya sheria yanakuwa na impact kwenye future decision/cases.
Ni mtazamo wangu.
 
P

Pdidy

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2007
Messages
39,873
Likes
8,693
Points
280
P

Pdidy

JF-Expert Member
Joined Nov 22, 2007
39,873 8,693 280
Bussiness Law -----2

I Like Dat!!!!!!vijana Wa Udsm Na Open Shule Ya Bure Hii Jf
Mkono Wako Tu Uliza Ujibiwe
Frm
Klhnews.com
 
Mzee Mwanakijiji

Mzee Mwanakijiji

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
31,875
Likes
8,032
Points
280
Mzee Mwanakijiji

Mzee Mwanakijiji

Platinum Member
Joined Mar 10, 2006
31,875 8,032 280
Hivi kama Katiba ingesema kuwa Mahakama ikitangaza kuwa sheria fulani ni kinyume na Katiba kama ilivyofanya kwenye kesi ya wagombea huru au kesi nyingine, kwanini sheria ileya uchaguzi inaendelea kutumika?

Ninachosema ni kuwa ibara hii ndiyo ibara hatari sana ya mabadiliko ya kisheria nchini kwa sababu inakupa kwa upande mmoja na kwa upande mwingine inanyima.

Nchi nyingine (hasa US) kipengele cha sheria au sheria nzima ikitangazwa kuwa ni unconstitutional sheria nzima inasitishwa hadi ifanyiwe mabadiliko.
 
L

Lizy

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
413
Likes
285
Points
80
L

Lizy

JF-Expert Member
Joined Feb 11, 2008
413 285 80
Hivi kama Katiba ingesema kuwa Mahakama ikitangaza kuwa sheria fulani ni kinyume na Katiba kama ilivyofanya kwenye kesi ya wagombea huru au kesi nyingine, kwanini sheria ileya uchaguzi inaendelea kutumika?

Ninachosema ni kuwa ibara hii ndiyo ibara hatari sana ya mabadiliko ya kisheria nchini kwa sababu inakupa kwa upande mmoja na kwa upande mwingine inanyima.

Nchi nyingine (hasa US) kipengele cha sheria au sheria nzima ikitangazwa kuwa ni unconstitutional sheria nzima inasitishwa hadi ifanyiwe mabadiliko.
Mwkjj,
I have to admit kwamba sijakuelewa kabisa ndugu yangu. Naomba unieleweshe zaidi kwa hayo niliyopigia mstari.

Kwa upande wa US, siwezi sema neno sababu sijui wao muongozo wao wa sheria unaenda vipi, japo ningeshukuru pia kama ungenipa walau mfano mmoja ambapo sheria ilitanganzwa kuwa unconstitutional, na sheria nzima ikasitishwa. Na what do you mean by "inasitishwa hadi ifanyiwe mabadiliko"? Na how long inakichukua chombo husika kurekebisha hiyo sheria iliyositishwa? Na wakati hiyo sheria iliyositishwa haijafanyiwa mabadiliko (iko kwenye process may be), and something happened ambacho ilitakiwa kiamuliwe na hiyo sheria iliyositishwa, na marekebisho bado kutolewa, how do they deal with the issue raised? Na kama wataihold issue raised during msitisho wa sheria iliyoonekana ni unconstitution, then mabadiliko yakafanyika later (baada ya issue kuwa imetokea) how do they judge this issue, is it bay the old sheria iliyositishwa or the new one (iliyobadilishwa) ili hali issue happened kabla hii sheria mpya (mabadiliko) kuundwa?

Thanks.

Lizy
 
Mpaka Kieleweke

Mpaka Kieleweke

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
4,134
Likes
73
Points
145
Mpaka Kieleweke

Mpaka Kieleweke

JF-Expert Member
Joined Feb 27, 2007
4,134 73 145
Hiki ndio kinachoitwa claw back laws.......baada ya mahakama kutaka pawepo na mgombea huru lilikuwa ni jukumu la bunge kutunga sheria ili iruhusu mgombea huru, sasa kutokana na udhaifu wa taasisi zetu kama vile mahakama na bunge dhidi ya executive unakuta hakuna linalofanyika na wala hakuna hatua zinachukuliwa .....kifupi ni kuwa executive haiheshimu Judiciary na hata parliament.
 
Mzee Mwanakijiji

Mzee Mwanakijiji

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
31,875
Likes
8,032
Points
280
Mzee Mwanakijiji

Mzee Mwanakijiji

Platinum Member
Joined Mar 10, 2006
31,875 8,032 280
Lizy,

Tofauti iliyopo iko hivi: Mahakama ya Marekani ikitangaza kuwa sheria au kipengele fulani cha sheria ni kinyume cha Katiba, sheria au kipengele hicho hakitumiki, yaani kinapoteza nguvu yake mara moja. Mfano mzuri ni sheria ya Patriot ambayo ndani yake kulikuwa na vipengele vingi tu ambavyo viliulizwa mahakamani kuona kama vinakubaliana na Katiba. Miaka miacha iliyopita, mahakama iliona baadhi vya vipengele vyake ni kinyume na Katiba. Tangu pale inapotangazwa rasmi vipengele hivyo vinapoteza nguvu yake.

Matokeo ya mtindo huo ni kuwa kwenye kesi ya Brown Vs School Board ambayo ilifungua shule za umma kwa watu wa rangi zote hapa Marekani, msingi wake ni kuwa Mahakama Kuu ya Marekani iliona sheria na hukumu iliyohalalisha kutengwa kinasaba kwa wanafunzi kulivunja vipengele vya Katiba ya Marekani na hivyo havina nguvu. Mahakama ilipotangaza hivyo, hakukuwa na jinsi yoyote ya wao (Board of education) kuendelea na sheria ya zamani, au kuifuata kwanza.. as a matter of fact mara tu walipotangaza kuwa "ni kinyume na Katiba" basi sheria ile au kipengele kile kilipoteza nguvu yake.

Sasa kwenye katiba yetu, siyo hivyo (kwenye hicho kipengele). Yaani, mahakama yetu inaweza kutangaza sheria au kipengele fulani cha Katiba na wakatoa muda ibadilishwe lakini kutokana na "sheria hiyo au hatua inayohusika itaendelea kuhesabiwa kuwa ni
halali hadi ama marekebisho yatakapofanywa au muda
uliowekwa na Mahakama Kuu utakapokwisha"

Hii ina maana gani? kama kungekuwa na sheria ya utengano kama ya Marekani ambapo wanafunzi weusi na weupe hawaruhusiwi kusoma shule moja na baadaye mahakama ikaona kuwa sheria hiyo ni kinyume na Katiba kwa kuzingatia vipengele vya "usawa" (equal protection clauses), basi tungetarajia kuwa mara baada ya kutangazwa hivyo sheria ya kutenga wanafunzi isingetumika siku inayofuata.

Sivyo ilivyo, kwa Tanzania sheria hiyo ingeendelea kutumika hadi Bunge liamua kuibadili au muda uliotolewa upite. Na kama haikutolewa muda maalum na Bunge halijaamua kufanya mabadiliko kimsingi sheria ile itaendelea na itakuwa halali na hivyo kufanya maamuzi ya mahakama kuwa ni ya bure.
 
L

Lizy

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
413
Likes
285
Points
80
L

Lizy

JF-Expert Member
Joined Feb 11, 2008
413 285 80
Hiki ndio kinachoitwa claw back laws.......baada ya mahakama kutaka pawepo na mgombea huru lilikuwa ni jukumu la bunge kutunga sheria ili iruhusu mgombea huru, sasa kutokana na udhaifu wa taasisi zetu kama vile mahakama na bunge dhidi ya executive unakuta hakuna linalofanyika na wala hakuna hatua zinachukuliwa .....kifupi ni kuwa executive haiheshimu Judiciary na hata parliament.
Mpaka kieleweke,

Kwa maelezo hapo juu, ni kwamba Tanzania hakuna sheria inayoruhusu mgombe huru, na kwamba mahakama ikaomba sheria hiyo itungwe, si ndiyo ama nimekuelewa vibaya? Au tuna sheria ya kuzuia mgombea huru? Kama ipo, nakiri sifahamu japo ningefurahi kufahamishwa?

Samahani kwa maswali haya coz najaribu kulinganisha na suala la mkjj kuona ni wapi sheria ya mgombea huru ilikosewa.

Natanguliza shukrani.
 
Mzee Mwanakijiji

Mzee Mwanakijiji

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
31,875
Likes
8,032
Points
280
Mzee Mwanakijiji

Mzee Mwanakijiji

Platinum Member
Joined Mar 10, 2006
31,875 8,032 280
Mpaka kieleweke,

Kwa maelezo hapo juu, ni kwamba Tanzania hakuna sheria inayoruhusu mgombe huru, na kwamba mahakama ikaomba sheria hiyo itungwe, si ndiyo ama nimekuelewa vibaya? Au tuna sheria ya kuzuia mgombea huru? Kama ipo, nakiri sifahamu japo ningefurahi kufahamishwa?

Samahani kwa maswali haya coz najaribu kulinganisha na suala la mkjj kuona ni wapi sheria ya mgombea huru ilikosewa.

Natanguliza shukrani.
Liz.. hii ni sehemu ya uamuzi wa Mahakama 2006 kuhusu wagombea binafsi katika kesi ya Mtikila Vs. Mwanasheria Mkuu

For all the above reasons we now come to the inevitable conclusion that this petition must succeed. We are of the settled view that the amendments to Articles 21(1) Article 39(1)c) and Article 67(1)(b) introduced by Act No. 34 of 1994 or popularly known as the 11th Amendment are unnecessary and unreasonable restrictions to the fundamental right of the citizens of Tanzania to run for the relevant elective posts either as party members or as private candidates. We thus proceed to declare the alleged amendments unconstitutional and contrary to the International Covenants to which Tanzania is a party.

In REV. MTIKILA Vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL [1995] TLR. 31, at p. 68 this Court through Lugakingira, J. (as he then) declared and directed that:

“… it shall be lawful for independent candidates along with candidates sponsored by political parties to contest, presidential, parliament and local council elections”.

We shall also declare kin the present case that in principle it shall be lawful for private candidates to contest for the posts of president and Member of Parliament along with candidates nominated by political parties. However unlike the learned late judge we will not just leave it at that. Exercising our powers under any other relief as prayed in the petition and cognizant of the fact that a vacuum might give birth to chaos and political pandemonium we shall proceed to order that the Respondent in the true spirit of the original Article 21(1) and guided by the Fundamental Objectives and Principles of State Policy contained in Part 11 of the Constitution between now and the next general elections, put in place, a legislative mechanism that will regulate the activities of private candidates. So as to let the will of the people prevail as to whether or not such candidates are suitable. As this is a public interest litigation the parties shall bear their own costs.

It is so ordered.


A.R. MANENO
PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Ukisoma hukumu hiyo unaweza kujiuliza kwanini miaka miwili baadaye hakuna wagombea huru? Jibu Ibara 30:5
 
L

Lizy

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
413
Likes
285
Points
80
L

Lizy

JF-Expert Member
Joined Feb 11, 2008
413 285 80
Lizy,

Tofauti iliyopo iko hivi: Mahakama ya Marekani ikitangaza kuwa sheria au kipengele fulani cha sheria ni kinyume cha Katiba, sheria au kipengele hicho hakitumiki, yaani kinapoteza nguvu yake mara moja.

"kesi ya Brown Vs School Board ambayo ilifungua shule za umma kwa watu wa rangi zote hapa Marekani, msingi wake ni kuwa Mahakama Kuu ya Marekani iliona sheria na hukumu iliyohalalisha kutengwa kinasaba kwa wanafunzi kulivunja vipengele vya Katiba ya Marekani na hivyo havina nguvu. Mahakama ilipotangaza hivyo, hakukuwa na jinsi yoyote ya wao (Board of education) kuendelea na sheria ya zamani, au kuifuata kwanza.. as a matter of fact mara tu walipotangaza kuwa "ni kinyume na Katiba" basi sheria ile au kipengele kile kilipoteza nguvu yake.

Mwkjj,
It takes time kubadili sheria, na inabadilishwa pale inapoonekana haikidhi mahitaji ya Umma. Kwa kesi ya Brown Vs School Board (1954) haikuwa ya kwanza kufile allegations za segregation. Nimeona kuna Roberts Vs City of Boston (1849) ilifile same case na claims zake zilitupiliwa mbali. Hata hivyo, napenda kukiri kwamba nilichoona ni claims za segregation ambazo ni kweli zilikuwepo, japo sijajua kifungu gani cha sheria kilikuwa kinaruhusu segregation. Inawezekana sheria against segregation ilikuwepo ila haikuwafuatwa na hawa Brown V School Board wakafile ili sheria hiyo ifuatwe.


Sivyo ilivyo, kwa Tanzania sheria hiyo ingeendelea kutumika hadi Bunge liamua kuibadili au muda uliotolewa upite. Na kama haikutolewa muda maalum na Bunge halijaamua kufanya mabadiliko kimsingi sheria ile itaendelea na itakuwa halali na hivyo kufanya maamuzi ya mahakama kuwa ni ya bure.
Mwkjj, naona labda ninachanganya mambo hapa nitaomba unisaidie. Unaweza kunipa mfano walau mmoja kwa Tanzania ambapo mahakama ilitoa maamuzi ya kubadili sheria ambayo ilionekana ni batili na haikubadilishwa? Ninaongelea kupendekeza kubadili sheria, na syo kuunda sheria mpya>

Lizy
 
L

Lizy

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
413
Likes
285
Points
80
L

Lizy

JF-Expert Member
Joined Feb 11, 2008
413 285 80
Liz.. hii ni sehemu ya uamuzi wa Mahakama 2006 kuhusu wagombea binafsi katika kesi ya Mtikila Vs. Mwanasheria Mkuu



Ukisoma hukumu hiyo unaweza kujiuliza kwanini miaka miwili baadaye hakuna wagombea huru? Jibu Ibara 30:5
Mkjj, naona post ziliingiliana, I mean niliuliza sikujua umejibu huku.

Kwani kuna wagombea huru walijitokeza baada ya hapo na wakazuliwa?

I am sorry siasa nipo ZERO, so ukiona najikanyaga sana nipeleke taratibu.

Lizy,
 
Pundit

Pundit

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
3,741
Likes
40
Points
145
Pundit

Pundit

JF-Expert Member
Joined Feb 4, 2007
3,741 40 145
Kwa ninavyoelewa mimi, and that is just the basics, ni kwamba mahakama ndiyo ina wajibu na uwezo wa ku interpret laws, na moja kati ya kazi hizo ni ku ascertain the constitutionality of the said laws.

The constitution being the primary law of the land, if the judiciary deems a certain law unconstitutional that law ceases to be a law.

It is up to the legislative body to provide a replacement law which will be subject to the interpretations and validations of the judiciary.

Tatizo ni kwamba we have a somewhat credible judiciary, but a sham legislative body.

Katika "Profiles in Courage" Jack Kennedy anasema (although some say that Pulitzer clinching opus was penned by an aide, but that's a whole new thread) anasema yafuatayo kuhusu his first term in the US ongress, which seems to be the same issue faced by our Bunge and a big part of the problem.

There were further implications in the warnings that I should "go along" - implications of the rewards that would follow fulfillment of my obligations to follow the party leadership whom I helped select.All of us in the Congress are made fully aware that the importance of party unity (what sins have been commited in that name!) and the adverse effect upon our party's chances in the next election which any rebellious conduct might bring.Moreover, in these days of Civil Service, the loaves and fishes of patronage available to the legislator - for distribution to those avid campaigners whose efforts were inspired by something than mere conviction- are comparatively few; and he who breaks the party's rank may find that there are suddenly none at all. Even the success of the legislation in which he is interested depends in part on the extent to which his support for his party's program has won him the assistance of his party's leaders. Finally, the Senator who foillows the independent course of conscience is likely to discover that he has earned the disdain not only of his colleagues in the Senate and his associates in his party but also of the all-important contributors to his campaign fund
Now we may not be as elaborate as the Americans -we do not even a campaign finance law and an ethics bill worth its name- but what Jack Kennedy pointed out above is a big part of the problem, especially in CCM.

Wabunge, hususan wa CCM, wanakuwa funded na chama (that's where huu wizi wa BOT na EPA unapokuja) then wanawekwa pale kuwa puppets wa CCM.Sasa huwezi kutegemea wabunge hawa waweze kuleta sheria za maana kwa wananchi, especially kama sheria hizo zinatishia interests za CCM, kama sheria ya wagombea binafsi.
 
Mzee Mwanakijiji

Mzee Mwanakijiji

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
31,875
Likes
8,032
Points
280
Mzee Mwanakijiji

Mzee Mwanakijiji

Platinum Member
Joined Mar 10, 2006
31,875 8,032 280
Kwa ninavyoelewa mimi, and that is just the basics, ni kwamba mahakama ndiyo ina wajibu na uwezo wa ku interpret laws, na moja kati ya kazi hizo ni ku ascertain the constitutionality of the said laws.

The constitution being the primary law of the land, if the judiciary deems a certain law unconstitutional that law ceases to be a law.

It is up to the legislative body to provide a replacement law which will be subject to the interpretations and validations of the judiciary.
Pundit, ideally that is what is supposed to be; Our constitution however Article 30:5 inasema hata kama mahakama inasema sheria au kipengele chake kuwa ni kinyume cha Katiba, sheria hiyo na kipengele hicho kinaendelea kuwa na nguvu hadi kitakapobadilishwa au muda ulioanishwa upite. Hivyo in Tanzania, when the Court says something is unconstitutional it doesn't mean that thing is illegal.. it'll continue to be legal until it has been scraped au muda unapita.

Lizy, ilijaribiwa huko Tunduru na tume ya uchaguzi ilikataa kwa sababu sheria haijabadilishwa licha ya kukiri kuwa mahakama imeamua vinginevyo lakini wao (tume) wanafuata sheria na walinukuu hiyo Ibara.
 
L

Lizy

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
413
Likes
285
Points
80
L

Lizy

JF-Expert Member
Joined Feb 11, 2008
413 285 80
Lizy, ilijaribiwa huko Tunduru na tume ya uchaguzi ilikataa kwa sababu sheria haijabadilishwa licha ya kukiri kuwa mahakama imeamua vinginevyo lakini wao (tume) wanafuata sheria na walinukuu hiyo Ibara.
Thanks Mwkjj,
As I requested before, kwenye Siasa nipeleke taratibu, vinginevyo utaniacha njiani.

Ref: “We are of the settled view that the amendments to Articles 21(1) Article 39(1)c) and Article 67(1)(b) introduced by Act No. 34 of 1994 or popularly known as the 11th Amendment are unnecessary and unreasonable restrictions to the fundamental right of the citizens of Tanzania to run for the relevant elective posts either as party members or as private candidates”.

Ili twende pamoja, ningeomba kuna unazo hizo Origina Articles 21(1), 39(1)(c) na 67(1)(b), uziweke tuone zilikuwa zinasemaje, then weka na hiyo mpya/amended one, Act No. 34 of 1994, tuone nayo inasemaje?
Na je, ni kwa nini waliamua kubadilisha hizo original Articles above to Act No 34 of 1994? Nani aliamua na ilichukua muda gani kabla ya zile Original Articles kucease? Ni kipengele kipi cha sheria (if different from Ibara 30:5), kilitumika kubadilisha hizo original Articles?

Thanks,

Lizy
 
Mzee Mwanakijiji

Mzee Mwanakijiji

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
31,875
Likes
8,032
Points
280
Mzee Mwanakijiji

Mzee Mwanakijiji

Platinum Member
Joined Mar 10, 2006
31,875 8,032 280
Lizy... hapa itakuwa kazi kidogo.. itabidi ufanye sehemu ya homework hii wewe mwenyewe. Kwa kifupi ni kuwa kulifanyika mabadiliko ya Katiba ambayo yaliingiza kipengele kinachotaka wagombea wa nafasi za uongozi kuwa wanatoka vyama vya kisiasa. Kabla ya hapo mgombea hakulazimishwa kuwa mwanachama wa chama cha kisiasa. Vipengele hivyo vya Katiba unaweza kuvisoma kwenye Katiba nenda http://www.tanzania.go.tz na utaiona Katiba na uvifuatilie.

Mabadiliko hayo ya vipengele vya Katiba yakapingana na kile kinachoitwa Haki za Msingi (Bill of Rights) ambapo mtu anayo haki ya kuchagua na kuchaguliwa akitimiza masharti fulani. Itafute hukumu nzima (google Mtikila Vs. Attorney General, Private Candidate"..
 
L

LazaroSMtindi

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2008
Messages
101
Likes
1
Points
0
L

LazaroSMtindi

Senior Member
Joined May 6, 2008
101 1 0
Lizy... hapa itakuwa kazi kidogo.. itabidi ufanye sehemu ya homework hii wewe mwenyewe. Kwa kifupi ni kuwa kulifanyika mabadiliko ya Katiba ambayo yaliingiza kipengele kinachotaka wagombea wa nafasi za uongozi kuwa wanatoka vyama vya kisiasa. Kabla ya hapo mgombea hakulazimishwa kuwa mwanachama wa chama cha kisiasa. Vipengele hivyo vya Katiba unaweza kuvisoma kwenye Katiba nenda http://www.tanzania.go.tz na utaiona Katiba na uvifuatilie.

Mabadiliko hayo ya vipengele vya Katiba yakapingana na kile kinachoitwa Haki za Msingi (Bill of Rights) ambapo mtu anayo haki ya kuchagua na kuchaguliwa akitimiza masharti fulani. Itafute hukumu nzima (google Mtikila Vs. Attorney General, Private Candidate"..
IBARA YA 30(5)
Nimefuatilia vizuri mjadala baina ya M'Kijiji, Pundit na Lizzy kuhusu Ibara ya 30(5) ya Katiba ya Tanzania. Kwanza, Ibara ya 30(5) si kipengele chenye masharti ya jumla, bali ni kipengele maalumu kinachosema pale ambapo "Mahakama Kuu inaridhika kwamba sheria ... kwa kiwango inachopingana na Katiba ni batili ... basi Mahakama Kuu ikiona kuwa yafaa au hali au maslahi ya jamii yahitaji hivyo, badala ya kutamka kuwa sheria au hatua hiyo ni batili, itakuwa na uwezo wa kuamua kutoa fursa kwa ajili ya Serikali au Mamlaka nyingine yoyote inayohusika kurekebisha hitilafu iliyopo katika sheria inayotuhumiwa au hatua inayohusika katika muda na kwa jinsi itakavyotajwa na Makahakama Kuu, na sheria hiyo au hatua hiyo inayohusika itaendelea kuhesabiwa kuwa ni halali hadi ama marekebisho yatakapofanywa au muda uliowekwa na Mahakama Kuu utakapokwisha, mradi muda mfupi zaidi ndio uzingatiwe". Hivyo basi, kipengele hicho cha Katiba kinaongelea pale ambapo Mahakama Kuu itachukua option ya "kuishauri" Serikali irekebishe sheria au hatua inayolalamikiwa. Otherwise, Mahakama Kuu inapochukua the other option ya kutangaza moja kwa moja kuwa sheria au hatua fulani ni unconstitutional, sheria au hatua hiyo inakuwa unconstitutional mara moja!
Katika suala tunaloliongelea la independent candidates, tuna mazingira tofauti kidogo. Position ni kwamba kuzuia independent candidates nchini Tanzania kwa sasa si halali, ni unconstitutional! Tatizo ni kuwa haki ya independent candidates kushiriki kwenye chaguzi kunahitaji mabadiliko ya sheria ya uchaguzi yatakayozingatia uwepo wa hao wababe wapya. Vilevile, huwezi kulilaumu Bunge pale ambapo tayari one of the parties katika kesi hiyo, Serikali, wame-file nia ya kupinga uamuzi huo wa Mahakama kwa njia ya rufaa. Muda wa rufaa ukiisha, hapo tutaanza kulishinikiza Bunge kubadili sheria ya uchaguzi.
Mwisho, Pundit punguza kidpogo ku-overglorify American system. Haiko perfect kama unavyoona wewe! Taifa kongwe kama hilo bado linanuka kwa ubaguzi wa ki-Ku Klux Klan, unadhani hiyo ni credit?
Lazaros
 
L

LazaroSMtindi

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2008
Messages
101
Likes
1
Points
0
L

LazaroSMtindi

Senior Member
Joined May 6, 2008
101 1 0
IBARA YA 30(5)
Nimefuatilia vizuri mjadala baina ya M'Kijiji, Pundit na Lizzy kuhusu Ibara ya 30(5) ya Katiba ya Tanzania. Kwanza, Ibara ya 30(5) si kipengele chenye masharti ya jumla, bali ni kipengele maalumu kinachosema pale ambapo "Mahakama Kuu inaridhika kwamba sheria ... kwa kiwango inachopingana na Katiba ni batili ... basi Mahakama Kuu ikiona kuwa yafaa au hali au maslahi ya jamii yahitaji hivyo, badala ya kutamka kuwa sheria au hatua hiyo ni batili, itakuwa na uwezo wa kuamua kutoa fursa kwa ajili ya Serikali au Mamlaka nyingine yoyote inayohusika kurekebisha hitilafu iliyopo katika sheria inayotuhumiwa au hatua inayohusika katika muda na kwa jinsi itakavyotajwa na Makahakama Kuu, na sheria hiyo au hatua hiyo inayohusika itaendelea kuhesabiwa kuwa ni halali hadi ama marekebisho yatakapofanywa au muda uliowekwa na Mahakama Kuu utakapokwisha, mradi muda mfupi zaidi ndio uzingatiwe". Hivyo basi, kipengele hicho cha Katiba kinaongelea pale ambapo Mahakama Kuu itachukua option ya "kuishauri" Serikali irekebishe sheria au hatua inayolalamikiwa. Otherwise, Mahakama Kuu inapochukua the other option ya kutangaza moja kwa moja kuwa sheria au hatua fulani ni unconstitutional, sheria au hatua hiyo inakuwa unconstitutional mara moja!
Katika suala tunaloliongelea la independent candidates, tuna mazingira tofauti kidogo. Position ni kwamba kuzuia independent candidates nchini Tanzania kwa sasa si halali, ni unconstitutional! Tatizo ni kuwa haki ya independent candidates kushiriki kwenye chaguzi kunahitaji mabadiliko ya sheria ya uchaguzi yatakayozingatia uwepo wa hao wababe wapya. Vilevile, huwezi kulilaumu Bunge pale ambapo tayari one of the parties katika kesi hiyo, Serikali, wame-file nia ya kupinga uamuzi huo wa Mahakama kwa njia ya rufaa. Muda wa rufaa ukiisha, hapo tutaanza kulishinikiza Bunge kubadili sheria ya uchaguzi.
Mwisho, Pundit punguza kidpogo ku-overglorify American system. Haiko perfect kama unavyoona wewe! Taifa kongwe kama hilo bado linanuka kwa ubaguzi wa ki-Ku Klux Klan, unadhani hiyo ni credit?
Lazaros
 
Mzee Mwanakijiji

Mzee Mwanakijiji

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
31,875
Likes
8,032
Points
280
Mzee Mwanakijiji

Mzee Mwanakijiji

Platinum Member
Joined Mar 10, 2006
31,875 8,032 280
Lazaro kwenye hiyo Ibara ya Katiba ni wapi wametumia neno "kushauri" serikali. Mahakama haina kazi ya kushauri.
 
L

Lizy

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
413
Likes
285
Points
80
L

Lizy

JF-Expert Member
Joined Feb 11, 2008
413 285 80
IBARA YA 30(5)
Nimefuatilia vizuri mjadala baina ya M'Kijiji, Pundit na Lizzy kuhusu Ibara ya 30(5) ya Katiba ya Tanzania.

kipengele hicho cha Katiba kinaongelea pale ambapo Mahakama Kuu itachukua option ya "kuishauri" Serikali irekebishe sheria au hatua inayolalamikiwa. Otherwise, Mahakama Kuu inapochukua the other option ya kutangaza moja kwa moja kuwa sheria au hatua fulani ni unconstitutional, sheria au hatua hiyo inakuwa unconstitutional mara moja!


Katika suala tunaloliongelea la independent candidates, tuna mazingira tofauti kidogo. Position ni kwamba kuzuia independent candidates nchini Tanzania kwa sasa si halali, ni unconstitutional! Tatizo ni kuwa haki ya independent candidates kushiriki kwenye chaguzi kunahitaji mabadiliko ya sheria ya uchaguzi yatakayozingatia uwepo wa hao wababe wapya. Vilevile, huwezi kulilaumu Bunge pale ambapo tayari one of the parties katika kesi hiyo, Serikali, wame-file nia ya kupinga uamuzi huo wa Mahakama kwa njia ya rufaa. Muda wa rufaa ukiisha, hapo tutaanza kulishinikiza Bunge kubadili sheria ya uchaguzi.
Lazaros,

Asante sana.

Mwkjj, may be we should wait for a while tuone Rufaa inaenda vipi bro, na tusijudge kwa kuangalia upande mmoja wa shilingi. The fact kwamba Principle Judge katika kesi ya Mtikila Vs Attorney kupendekeza kwamba the Act is Unconstitution, haimpi nafasi ya kuwa mwamuzi wa mwisho katika suala hili, ni mahakama ya Rufaa peke yake yenye maamuzi ambapo ikiona sheria sheria ni sahihi itaimaintain na ikiona si sahihi basi itasitishwa mara moja. So far, bado nakubaliana na kipengele "Itaendelea kuwa sheria mpaka hapo mabadiliko yatakapotokea au huo muda uliotolewa kubadili kupita"

Fair enough.

Lizy
 

Forum statistics

Threads 1,237,779
Members 475,675
Posts 29,300,765