Ibara ya 30:5

[Augustoons]

Wapi imesemwa kwamba "mahakama inapewa uwezo(discretion) kwa kufuata...."?

Halafu fafanua contradiction ya maneno mekundu.

Naomba kuuliza.

Mhe.Kuhani
Tafsiri hiyo hautoikuta mahala popote kwenye katiba,tafsiri hiyo utaikuta kwenye kesi laws,mfano ukipitia kesi nyingi za katiba za nchi mbalimbali na hata zile za Tanzania mathalani mbushuu Dominic v.AG,Kukutia Ole Pumbuni vs. AG,LHRC VS.AG.,MTIKILA VS AG(1997)TLR,Daudi Pete vs.DP,JULIUS ISHENGOMA NDYANABO vs.AG zote hizi ni celebrated case za katiba ambazo zimegusa sana ibara hiyo ya 30(5).Na tafsiri ya discretion kisheria ni uwezo wa kutenda au kutotenda bila kuingiliwa au kwa plain language ndiyo tunayoita option.

 

[Augustoons]

Hapa naomba tuwe makini sheria kuwa unconstitutional sio lazima iwe batili kwa mujibu wa tafsiri yake hapa juu....

...mahakama ilitumia uwezo wake wa kwanza katika ibara ya 30(5) bila kuipa muda serikali kwa kutangaza moja kwa moja kuwa sheria hiyo ni kinyume cha katiba na kwa maana hiyo ni batili

Kwenye aya ya kwanza hapo juu nina maana kuwa uwezo wa kuibatilisha sheria ni wa mahakama yenyewe kwa mantiki zake,hivyo wanaouwezo wa kusema ni kinyume cha katiba ila wasiibatilishe badala yake wakaipa serikali muda kuirekebisha,sasa wasipoibatilisha sheria ile bado inakuwa hai.

Na aya ya pili hapo juu maana yake ni kwamba serikali haipewi muda wa kufanya marekebisho mahakama right away inatamka kuwa sheria hiyo ni kinyume cha katiba na kuibatilisha.Inapotokea hali kama hii sheria ile inaanguka palepale na kuwa sio sheria tena,unless kuna rufaa.

 

[Augustoons]

Augustoons.. rudi kurasa chache hapo nyuma nimeweka hukumu ya kesi hii ya wagombea huru na utusaidie katika tafsiri yake.

Ok,mwanakijiji
Nitarudi niisome halafu niitoleee tafsiri.Utanisaidia kama utapaste link hapa badala ya mimi kusearch page after page.Nitashukuru sana

 

[Augustoons]

Vipi Mahakama ikisema kulazimisha kugombea kupitia chama ni kinyume cha Katiba halafu ikaipa miezi mitatu Serikali kubadili Katiba.

Uchaguzi ukija miezi miwili baada ya hukumu ya Mahakama mshitaki atanyimwa haki kugombea bila chama?

(Sijasema lolote hapa kuhusu, na naomba usilete, mijadala ya rufaa.)

Sasa hapo Kuhani ndio patamu
Mahakama imekwisha tangaza kuwa sheria fulani ni kinyume cha katiba kwa kuwa inakiuka au kukatiza haki na uhuru wa watu,na ikaipa serikali miezi mitatu kuirekebisha na haikufana hivyo.Ina maana kuwa sheria hiyo ni batili kwakuwa muda uliotolewa na mahakama umepita.

Sasa miezi miwili baada ya hukumu ukitokea uchaguzi na serikali haijairekebisha hiyo sheria bado mgombea binafsi atanyimwa nafasi ya kugombea kwa kuwa muda ule wa miezi mitatu haujaisha na ile sheria bado ipo hai.Ila itakuwa different case kama uchaguzi utakuja baada ya miezi minne au sita baada ya ule muda uliotolewa na mahakama kwisha.

 

[Augustoons]

Ni mtazamo wangu.

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

Ni sahihi kutumia neno "badala" baada ya "baada" kwa kuwa neno badala linamaanisha "instead of" wakati neno baada linamaanisha "after".Hivyo mzizi wa neno badala ni badili,wakati baada ni baada hivyohivyo ni neno linalojisimamia lenyewa,lilimaanisha kuna kitu kinaanza na kingine kinafuata.

Naomba kuwasilisha

 

[Mzee Mwanakijiji]

Augustoons hii hapa:

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

 

[Augustoons]

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 JUD

Mwanakijiji,
Unaona hapa mahakama ilitumia option ya pili ya kuipa muda serikali tena kwa kuiamuru kuwa ihakikishe inaandaa utaratibu ambao utawezesha mgombea binafsi agombee,lakini tatizo la mahakama hapa iliteleza haikutoa ukomo wa hiyo fursa ni lini ,japo ukisoma vizuri utagundua kuwa mahakama ilisema hadi uchaguzi mwingine sasa inategemea hukumu hiyo ilitolewa lini.

Sasa tatizo hapa ni kiburi cha serikali kudharau amri za mahakama,na ndio maana mahakama ilikuja kurudia tena uamuzi wake uleule wa awali kwa kuwa inafungwa na maamuzi yake.
Ok,kwa hiyo serikali imeendelea kukiuka maagizo ya mahakama kuu toka mwaka huo 1995 kwenye MTIKILA V.AG,kwenye uchaguzi wa 2000 na hata 2005 na wanaishia kusema wanakata rufaa wakati kwenye hiyo hukumu ya Mwaka 1995 haikukata rufaa,au sijui nini kiliwasibu kukata rufaa.

Lakini hili jambo sio la kwanza,mabadiliko yaliyofanyika kuongeza ibara ya 30(5) yalikuwa ni kujibu mapigo ya mahakama kwa kuipunguzia nguvu kwani kabla ya kuongeza ibara hiyo mahakama ilikuwa ina nguvu sana na ilishatangaza na kufuta sheria nyingi sana hasa alipokuwepo Mwalusanya,J na Nyalali.Baada ya kuona mambo yanawaendea vibaya wakaamua kuongeza ibara hiyo ili wapumue kidogo.

Kwa ufupi ibara ya 30(5) ni moja ya ibara ambayo wanasheria na wanaharakati mbalimbali wamekuwa wakiipigia kelele sana kwa kuwa inapunguza uhuru wa mahakama9independence of judiciary) na kuigeuza kuwa mshauri tu wa serikali inapotokea sheria kuwa mbovu hasa ukichukulia kwamba Jaji anateuliwa na Rais,hali ambayo mra nyingi inamfanya kuihofu serikali unless ni mbabe kama mwalusanya,Lugakingira,na Justice Kanyeihamba wa Uganda.Hayo ndiyo matatizo ya hiyo ibara mhe.Mwanakijiji.

 

[Kuhani]

Nitarudi niisome halafu niitoleee tafsiri.

Hizo case laws ulizozisema I hope sio tafsiri zako mwenyewe. Nilidhani ni Mahakama ilivyosema, sasa ukianza kututolea tafsiri zako mwenyewe hapa bila substantiation kumbuka kuna wengine hata Mtume Paulo akitutafsiria Biblia huwa tunamwomba atuambie kama Mungu ame endorse hiyo tafsiri. Kuna tatizo hapo.

Ngoja nikazisome hizo precedents. I am sure you are right.

 

[Mwita Maranya]

Kwakweli leo nimepata darasa zuri sana hapa JF.
Niwapongeze tu wana JF wenzangu MMKJJ, LIZY, AUGUSTOONS, KUHANI na wengine ambao wamechangia mjadala huu.Ama kwa hakika mjadala huu ulikuwa ni mtamu sana na umetusaidia sana kupanua ufahamu wetu hasa wale tusioijua sana sheria na katiba.
Naamini mtaendelea kutuletea mijadala yenye afya kama hii.
BIG UP ALL MY PEOPLE.

 

[Mzee Mwanakijiji]

Augustoons, umesema vyema na ndiyo sababu ya mimi kuweka hii ibara hapa. Naomba ukiweza chukua muda mfupi kutuandikia summary ya hapa halatu nitaiweka kwenye PDF ili watu wengine waweze kuisoma vizuri kwa urahisi na kujua mawili matatu kuhusu katiba yetu. Unaweza kuendeleza hilo hitimisho ulilolitoa hapo.

 

[Augustoons]

Hizo case laws ulizozisema I hope sio tafsiri zako mwenyewe. Nilidhani ni Mahakama ilivyosema, sasa ukianza kututolea tafsiri zako mwenyewe hapa bila substantiation kumbuka kuna wengine hata Mtume Paulo akitutafsiria Biblia huwa tunamwomba atuambie kama Mungu ame endorse hiyo tafsiri. Kuna tatizo hapo.

Ngoja nikazisome hizo precedents. I am sure you are right.

Anyway kuhani nilijibu hivyo kwa kuwa Mwanakijiji aliniomba tafsiri nami kama learned friend nimejifunza statutory interpretation na ndio maana nikasema nitarudi kutafsiri. Ila kesi nilizokutajia hapo juu zimejaribu kutafsiri vipengele mbalimbali vya katiba na sheria,hasa kunapokuwa na legal question mf.Katika kesi ya Daudi Pete Kama sikosei moja ya legal question ambazo sisi huziitz "issues" ilikuwa which one is the correct version ya katiba ya nchi"ambapo mahakama katika kujibu hoja hiyo ilisema kuwa ni ile version ya kiswahili.

Sasa unaposoma kesi ili uielewe unatakiwa kuanza na 1.MATERIAL FACTS, 2.ISSUES,3.LEGAL REASONING,4.Conclusion.Wakati facts ni ile habari yenyewe ya kesi,issues ni kitu kinachoshindaniwa na hizi huweza huwa moja,mbili ay tatu na issues zinaweza kuwa identified na mahakama au parties wenyewe wakikubaliana kuwa hiyo ndiyo issues. Baada ya kupata issue then mahakama inaendelea kuzijadili na kuzijibu kwa mujibu wa hoja za pande zote mbili,sheria na tafsri mbalimbali za sheria zinazotokana na kesi zilizoamriwa kabla ya kesi iliyopo mezani.

Nadhani lengo la mjadala huu si nani ameshinda ila ni kujaribu kuelimishana na mwishowe kuona kwa nini mgombea binafsi hajaruhusiwa Tz.Hii ndiyo perspective yangu kwenye hii discussion.Though i agree i may be wrong somewhere or right kutegemea na issue iliyopo mezani.

 

[Augustoons]

Augustoons, umesema vyema na ndiyo sababu ya mimi kuweka hii ibara hapa. Naomba ukiweza chukua muda mfupi kutuandikia summary ya hapa halatu nitaiweka kwenye PDF ili watu wengine waweze kuisoma vizuri kwa urahisi na kujua mawili matatu kuhusu katiba yetu. Unaweza kuendeleza hilo hitimisho ulilolitoa hapo.

Asante Mkuu nitajitahidi kufanya hivyo;
Kitu kimoja ni kwamba nimepata kushiriki kwenye baadhi ya hizi kesi zinazohusu Katiba nikiwa upande wa watu wanaodai kuwa sheria fulani inapingana na Katiba wakati nikiwa huko Tz,mojawapo ya kesi hizi ni ile ya Takrima LHRC and Others vs.AG,Ile kesi ya kutaka kutenguea sheria ya mirathi ambayo tulishindwa,na sasa ile kesi ya ardhi ya Kijiji cha Nyamuma dhidi ya serikali ambapo bado mahakama ya rufani ilikuwa haijapanga kuisikiliza.Sijui wadau wenzangu huko bongo wanaendeleaje.Ushiriki wangu mkubwa umekuwa kwenye research za legal authorities,submissions preparation, and court in attendance. Kwa hiyo hiyo ndiyo iliyonifanya niwe na mwanga walau kuhusu hizi constitutionla case,mabli ya kuzisoma kama theory darasani hapo faculty of law udsm kwenye administrative and constitutional Law.

I berg to submitt

 

[Kuhani]

...Sasa tatizo hapa ni kiburi cha serikali kudharau amri za mahakama,na ndio maana mahakama ilikuja kurudia tena uamuzi wake uleule wa awali kwa kuwa inafungwa na maamuzi yake.
Ok,kwa hiyo serikali imeendelea kukiuka maagizo ya mahakama kuu toka mwaka huo 1995 kwenye MTIKILA V.AG,kwenye uchaguzi wa 2000 na hata 2005 na wanaishia kusema wanakata rufaa wakati kwenye hiyo hukumu ya Mwaka 1995 haikukata rufaa,au sijui nini kiliwasibu kukata rufaa.

Mkuu check this out.

Imekuwaje Serikali imeweza kutofanya Mahakama ilichoamua?

Kwa sababu wametoa notice ya kunuwia kukata rufaa. Ok!

Ukinuwia kukata rufaa maamuzi yanasimamishwa. Sawa!

Mpaka lini?

Mpaka lini?

It's been 13 years since that ruling was handed down.

A decade and change!

Ina maana Tanzania rufaa haina deadline.

Unaweza kutumia notice of appeal "kuweka usiku" mpaka uchaguzi upite. Na mwingine. Na mwingine. Mpaka liamba.

Sasa Tanzania, ambapo tunafuata misingi ya Common Law ya Muingereza, moja ya salient characteristic zake ni kwamba mfumo wetu ni adversarial system. Yani, wanaoshitakiana wanategemewa wawe na uadui wa Kisheria. Kwamba Serikali, au yeyote yule anaeshitaki(wa) anategemewa atumie kila njia, hila na usanii wa Kisheria kuvutia ngozi kwake. Hapa Serikali inatumia Sheria kuweka usiku: Sheria ya Notice of Appeal isiyokuwa na mwisho.

Kosa sio la Serikali.

Katika adversarial system hakuna undugu.

Kosa ni Bunge lilitolunga sheria inayosema unaweza kusema unataka ku appeal halafu tukakaa tunakusubiri mpaka liamba.

(Marekani unapewa siku 30 kukata rufaa kwenye Federal Court, isipokuwa kama Serikali ni moja ya mshitaki(wa). Hatuongelei maendeleo ya teknolojia na advancement nyingine za dunia ya kwanza kwa hiyo tunaweza kulinganisha ubora na uozo wa sheria zetu dhidi ya nchi yoyote duniani.)

 

[Augustoons]

Mkuu check this out.

Imekuwaje Serikali imeweza kutofanya Mahakama ilichoamua?

Kwa sababu wametoa notice ya kunuwia kukata rufaa. Ok!

Ukinuwia kukata rufaa maamuzi yanasimamishwa. Sawa!

Mpaka lini?

Mpaka lini?

It's been 13 years since that ruling was handed down.

A decade and change!

Ina maana Tanzania rufaa haina deadline.

Unaweza kutumia notice of appeal "kuweka usiku" mpaka uchaguzi upite. Na mwingine. Na mwingine. Mpaka liamba.

Sasa Tanzania, ambapo tunafuata misingi ya Common Law ya Muingereza, moja ya salient characteristic zake ni kwamba mfumo wetu ni adversarial system. Yani, wanaoshitakiana wanategemewa wawe na uadui wa Kisheria. Kwamba Serikali, au yeyote yule anaeshitaki(wa) anategemewa atumie kila njia, hila na usanii wa Kisheria kuvutia ngozi kwake. Hapa Serikali inatumia Sheria kuweka usiku: Sheria ya Notice of Appeal isiyokuwa na mwisho.

Kosa sio la Serikali.

Katika adversarial system hakuna undugu.

Kosa ni Bunge lilitolunga sheria inayosema unaweza kusema unataka ku appeal halafu tukakaa tunakusubiri mpaka liamba.

(Marekani unapewa siku 30 kukata rufaa kwenye Federal Court, isipokuwa kama Serikali ni moja ya mshitaki(wa). Hatuongelei maendeleo ya teknolojia na advancement nyingine za dunia ya kwanza kwa hiyo tunaweza kulinganisha ubora na uozo wa sheria zetu dhidi ya nchi yoyote duniani.)

hahaha
mkuu kuhani
umenifurahisha sana,mie sijui kama hao kina AG wamefile notice of appeal au wameshafile appeal yenyewe nadhani hili linahitaji utafiti zaidi kujua walichofile ni nini?Sasa hata kama wamefile notice of appeal,nadhani wanatakiwa sasa waombe leave ya kuappeal on point of law,sasa huenda kwenye kuargue hiyo leave wakawa na wakati mgumu kidogo,kwa nini hawakufile notice mwaka 1995?hukumu ilipotolewa mara ya kwanza?na je,kama walipewa leave to appeal to the court of appeal kwa nini hawakufile RECORD OF appeal?maana record of appeal ndio appeal yenyewe.Hii kesi itavuta attention zangu sana,maana mie nasubiri tu nione.Au AG kaomba judicial review au kaomba revision?ni apeal kweli hii? Maana notice peke yake sidhani kama ina stay.


Mkuu KUHANI ngoja tusaidiane kitu kimoja tufanye researc,twende kwenye web ya bunge tutafue Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act halafu tukiipata tuisome in tandem na The Appellate Jurisdiction Act,kuona utaratibu.These 2 laws must be read together( in tandem)

 

[Augustoons]

kUHANI
Naomba kwenye Appellate jurisdiction Act tujikite kwenye part 4 and court of appeal rules,sema sina uhakika kama tutapate court of appeal rules kwenye soft copy kwani principa Act PEKE YAKE HAIJITOSHELEZI.Zile rules ndio zinamatter sana,ila kama uko tz unaweza kwenda kwenye ofisi yoyote ya wakili unayoweza kuaccess ukaomba court of appeal rules.Na yeyote mwenye soft copy akituwekea hapa itakuwa vema,sana maana zinapatikana kwenye index ndogo ya subsidiary legislation

 

[Pundit]

Bongo bwana,

Kama statute of limitations ina apply by the time watu wana appeal witnesses na parties zote wote washasahau original kesi ilikuwa nini.

TKO, by alfu lela u lela.

Jaji anaandika opinion (tunaita judgement?) na kumchomeka Louis XIII out of nowhere for no reason, ulimbwende tu!

 

[Nyani Ngabu]

Bongo hakuna utawala wa sheria wala hakuna anayeheshimu sheria. Matter of fact, Afrika nzima iko hivyo. Mambo ya utawala wa sheria ni foreign concept...

 

[Augustoons]

Mhe,Mwanakijiji
Nimejibu maombi yako na kufanya kazi uliyonituma hapa:
MJADALA KUHUSU IBARA YA 30(5) YA KATIBA YA JAMHURI YA MUUNGANO WA TANZANIA, 1977.
UTANGULIZI.

Ndugu Wadau,
Hapa JF kulibuka mjadala mkali sana kuhusu ibara ya 30(5) ya katiba ya Tanzania,mjadala ambao uliiibuliwa na Mwanakijiji akitaka kujua mambo yafuatayo:-

1. Je,mahakama ikisema sheria Fulani ni batili na kinyume cha katiba kwa mujibu wa ibara ya 30(5) sheria hiyo inatenguka mara moja?

2. Je, neno "badala" linapotumika katika ibara tajwa hapo juu ni sawa au neon baada ndilo lingetumika?

3. Kama mahakama inasema sheria Fulani ni kinyume cha katiba ni kwa msingi gani sheria hiyo inaendelea kutumika?

Watu mbalimbali walichangai mada hii,kiasi cha kupelekea kuibua hoja au maswali mengine mengi (ambayo kisheria nayaita issues) yaliyohusiana na ibara hiyo.Moja ya maswali hayo ni kma yafuatayo:-

1. Je,nini kitatokea iwapo mahakama imeipa serikali muda wa maalumu mathalani miezi 3 kurekebisha sheria na serikali haikufanya hivyo,ipi ni hadhi(status) ya hiyo sheria au kipengele chake?

2. Je,mamlaka au uwezo wa mahakama kuamua au kutoamua kutenda jambo Fulani(discretion) unatoka wapi?mbona hauelezwi kwenye katiba?

3. Je,nini kitatokea kwa wafungwa waliokwisha hukumiwa mf.kifo iwapo mahakama itatengua sheria ya adhabu ya kifo kuwa ni kinyume na katiba na hivyo ni batili?

4. Unaposoma iara ya 30(5) unaona tatizo gani kubwa ambalo linasababisha kutotekelezwa kwa hukumu ya mahakama kuu kuhusu wagombea binafsi?

5. Je,kitendo cha kukata rufaa kinaweza kusimamisha utakelezajiwa hukumu ya mahakama ya chini iayokatiwa rufaa?

6. Je,mahakama inapotoa mwanya wa serikali kurekebisha sheria yake ambayo yenyewe imeiona kupingana na katiba je,hiyo itawakilishwa vipi serikalini?

Kutokana na umuhimu wa mjadala wenyewe,Mwanakijiji aliniomba nitoa legal opinion au nitoea summary ya majadiliano yote na majibu yangu katika mjadala huu kwa faida ya jamii ya jf na wengineo. Nami kwa kuheshimu ombi la mwanakijiji na jamii nyingine inayotaka kujua kuhusu katiba nimekubali kutumia muda wangu mwingi na akili kutoa maelezo yanayohusiana na ibara hiyo.Natambua kuwa hata baada ya kutoa maelezo haya wapo watu ambao yatawasumbua au watayahoji,au kutokubaliana nayo kabisa,lakini mimi nayatoa huku nikiamini hiyo ndiyo sheria kwa mujibu wa ufahamu na imani yangu kulingana na maamuzi mbalimbali ya mahakama.Bado wasioelewa nitaendelea kushirikiana nao kwa nia ya kujenga na wale tutakaotofautiana nitakubali kutofatiana nao kwani "lawyers always agree to disagree".Kabla hatujaendelea na mjadala wenyewe ngoja ninukuu ibara ya 30(5) ya katiba ya Tanzania kama inavyosomeka kwenye toleo la mwaka 2000.

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

.
(Msisitizo wa kwangu mwenyewe)

MADA YENYEWE.

Mada hii kwa ujumla wake inahusu uhuru wa mahakama, kwa kimombo "independence of judiciary" lakini pia inagusa mawanyo wa madaraka(separation of power).Kama makavyoona apo juu maswali ya msingi ni machache lakini yameibua maswali ya nyongeza sita au zaidi ya hayo. Ili kuelewa mada hii nitaanza na kueleza chanzo au chimbuko la uwezo wa mahakama hasa katika nchi za jumuiya ya madola.

Mahakama ya Tanzania kama zilivyo mahakama nyingine duniani pote zinayo mamlaka na nguvu za kutoa maamuzi yene athari mbalimbali.Uwezo huu huitwa jurisdiction.Katika masuala ya katiba na haki za msingi za watu mahakama ina mamlaka ya pekee na ya asili(exclusive and inherent jurisdiction).Uwezo au mamlaka haya hautokani na katiba wala sheria yoyote kama nilivyosema ni uwezo wa asili ambao mahakama ina wivu sana mara uwezo huu unapotaka kuondolewa.Uwezo na mamlaka haya vimeafikiwa na katiba ya jamhuri ya muungano wa Tanzania ibara ya 107A na 107B lakini pia vimesisitizwa katika ibara ya 108(2) ambapo inasema:-

Iwapo Katiba hii au sheria nyingine yoyote haikutamka wazi
kwamba shauri la aina iliyotajwa mahususi litasikilizwa kwanza
katika Mahakama ya ngazi iliyotajwa mahsusi kwa ajili hiyo, basi
Mahakama Kuu itakuwa na mamlaka ya kusikiliza kila shauri la
aina hiyo. Hali kadhalika Mahakama Kuu itakuwa na uwezo wa
kutekeleza shughuli yoyote ambayo kwa mujibu wa mila za
kisheria zinazotumika Tanzania shughuli ya aina hiyo kwa
kawaida hutekelezwa na Mahakama Kuu

au

108 (1) There shall be a High Court of the United Republic (referred to as the "High Court") which shall have the jurisdiction and powers conferred on it by this Constitution or by any other legislation.

(2)Where it is not expressly stated in this Constitution or in any other legislation that any specific matter shall first be heard and determined by certain court, the High Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine that matter. In addition the High Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any other matter which in accordance with legal traditions and conventional practices obtaining is ordinarily to be heard and determined by the High Court. Save that, the provisions of this section shall apply subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania as provided for in this Constitution or in any other legislation

"

Nimewekea uzito neno mila za sheria kwa sababu maalumu. Mila za sheria zinazotumika Tanzania tulizipokea tangu tarehe 22 july 1920 kupitia kitu kinachoitwa Receptio clause kwa sheria inayoitwa The Judicature and Aplication of Laws Ordinace(JALO).JALO hili ndilo lililoleta sheria hapa Tanzania zikitokea uinereza kupitia India,ambapo tangu wakati huo mahakama kuu ya Tanzania inafunwa na maamuzi yake yenyewe na yale ya iliyo juu yake.Na kwamba mahakama kuu itatumia maaamuzi yaliyopita(precedents) katika kuamua mgogoro uliopo mbele yake na vilevile Common law, statutes of general application na doctrines of equity ambazo zinatumika uingereza kwa tarehe ile na ambazo hazijatanguliwa bado.Athari ya kifungu hiki ni kuirithisha mahakama ya Tanzania uwezo asilia na mila za mahakama duniani pote.Mila hizi ni zile zinazoifanya iwe na uwezo wa kukitolea maamuzi kitu chochote,kutangua au kutengua sheria inayokinzana na katiba,kutoa amri mbalimbali(interlocutory or interim orders) na vilevile mamlaka ya usimamizi na kufanya judicial review.Mfano wa mahali ambapo mahakama inaweza kutumia uwezo wake wa asili(inherent power) hata bila kuombwa kutoa maamuzi ni kama hapa:

"

However, we have further seen that section 130 (b) and (c) of the National Elections Act give powers to the High Court to allow such acts done in food faith or traditional hospitality to be exception which would otherwise make the acts or omission corrupt or illegal practice. We think this provision may lead to absurdities in the face of what we have declared on sections 119 (2) and (3). So in our view although the petitioners have not specifically prayed for the nullification of this provision we think that it cannot be saved either. We exercise our powers under "any other relief and proceed to declare that section 130 (b) and (c) are also unconstitutional and should be struck out of the statute

"

Kutokana na hali hii,mara baada ya uhuru wa Tanganyika 1961 mahakama kuu iliendelea na mamlaka yake na kuendelea kuzifuta sheria nyingi au vipenele vya sheria vilivyokinzana na katiba.Hali hii ilijitokeza sana hasa baada ya kuingizwa haki za msingi za binadamu katika katiba(Bill of rights).Baada ya kuona kuwa mahakama inatangaza sheria nyingi kukinzana na katiba na hivyo ni batili(unconstitutional and therefore null and void),serikali ilishituka na kuamua kukianyiamarekebsho kifungu cha 30 cha katiba kwa kuongeza ibara (5) ili kubana uhuru wa mahakama katika kufuta sheria zake na sababu ambazo wao walisema mahakama isiiingilie uhuru wa bunge kwa kufuta sheria ilizozitunga.Moja ya kesi maarufu sana ambapo mahakama kuu ilizifuta sheria zinazopingana na katiba ni kama ifuatavyo:-Daudi Pete v R,ambapo mahakama kuu ilikifuta kifungu cha 148(5) cha sheria ya mwenendo wa makosa ya jinai kilichokuwa kinanyima dhamana mtuhumiwa wa kesi ya unyang'anyi.Mahakama ya rufani ilikubaliana na jaji mwalusanya kuwa kipengele hicho ni kinyume cha katiba na hivyo ilikifuta mara moja kwa kusema

"

we agree with Mwalusanya, J. that section 148(5)(e) is unconstitutional and is therefore struck out of the statute book of the country. This means that the courts have discretion to grant bail to persons accused of the offences specified under section 148(5)(e) in accordance with the law as it existed before the enactment of section 148(5)(e). This discretion ought always to be exercised judicially by the courts taking into account both the interests of the individual, and the community of which the individual is a part

.

Ambapo ni katika kesi hii pia ulijitokeza utata kuhusu ipi ni tafsiri halali ya katiba ya Tanzania je ni ile ya kiingereza au ya Kiswahili, mahakama ilisema hivi(nanukuu);

Since our Constitution is established in the Kiswahili language, we must constantly bear in mind that the controlling version is the Kiswahili one and not the English version. When that is done, it is immediately noticed that the English version of paragraph (b) of sub-article (2) of Article 15 is incorrect in so far as it includes the words "or upon reasonable suspicion of having committed a criminal offence".

Mahakama pia iliwahi kuifuta sheria katika kesi ya KUKUTIA OLE PUMBUN and others v AG,JULIUS ISHENGOMA NDYANABO Vs.AG(Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2001) (,MBUSHUU DOMINIC V.R[1995] TLR 97,PETER NG'OMANGO V.GERSON MWANGWA AND AG(Civil Application No. 33 of 2002), LEGAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS CENTRE (LHRC) AND OTHERS V ATTORNEY GENERAL (1) (Miscellaneous Civil Case No 77 of 2005) [2006] TZHC 1 (24 April 2006)[MAARUFU KAMA KESI YA TAKRIMA] na nyingine nyingi.

Katika kesi zote hizi mahakama imetumia uwezo wake asilia(inherent power) kuzifuta sheria ama kuipa serikali muda kuzibadilisha,na ndio maana tunasema mahakama inayo discretion yaani uwezo wa kuipa serikali muda wa kurekebisha sheria husika ama kuitangaza moja kwa moja kuwa ni batili na hivyo kuifuta kwenye vitabu vya sheria.Sasa tunakuja wenye maswali ya Mwanakiji kama ifuatavyo:-

1. Je,mahakama ikisema sheria Fulani ni batili na kinyume cha katiba kwa mujibu wa ibara ya 30(5) sheria hiyo inatenguka mara moja?

Jibu hapa ni ndiyo,sheria hiyo inatenguka mara moja,kwani neon batili maana yake kwa kiingereza void na kwa tafsiri ya kisheria void maana yakeni sawa sawa na hicho kitu hakikuwepo vile.Hivyo mahakama ikishasema imeridhika kuwa sheria hiyo inakinzana na katiba na hivyo ni batili basi serikali haina ubavu tena wa kuibadili kwa kuwa huwezi kubadili kitu ambacho hakikuwepo.Madhara yake ni sheria hiyo kutenguka mara moja na mtu aliekuwa ameshitakiwa kuachiliwa huru mara moja bila masharti.(kwa uhakika angalia hiyo hukumu ya Daudi Pete mahakama imesemaje)mwisho wa kesi sentensi ya mwisho mahakama ilisema hivi(nanukuu) "Thus we dismiss the appeal. Since the respondent is already a free man, we make no order inrespect of him". Mifano hai ya sheria kutenguka yanyewe ni katika kesi ya MTIKILA V.AG(ile kesi ya kwanza kabisa),Daudi pete v.R,Kukutia Ole Pumbun,Peter Ng'omango v.R n.k)

2. Je, neno "badala" linapotumika katika ibara tajwa hapo juu ni sawa au neon baada ndilo lingetumika?

Neno badala linapotumika katika ibara ya 30:5 hapo juu ni sahihi kabisa kwa kuwa neon hilo kwa kiingereza lnamaanisha "instead of" wakati neon baada linamaanisha "after".Badala mzizi wake ni badili,hivyo badala ya kutamka kwa ni batili,mahakama itaipa serikali muda wa kuirekebisha.Hivyo hapo hakuna tatizo kabisa.


3. Kama mahakama inasema sheria Fulani ni kinyume cha katiba ni kwa msingi gani sheria hiyo inaendelea kutumika

Sheria hiyo inaendelea kutumika kwa misingi ya ibara ya 30(5) ya katiba ambapo kama sheria inapingana na katiba basi sheria hiyo kama haikutamkwa kuwa ni batili(void) itakuwa ni batilifu(voidable).Kitu kinapokuwa voidable au batilifu,ni halali bado ila kinawezwa kuepukwa kwa kutangazwa void kwa chaguo la upande wowote(ie. It may be avoided at the option of either parties).Either parties hapa ni serikali na mahakama,iwapo mahakama imeipa muda serikali kuirekebisha hiyo sheria,sheria hiyo itakuwa batilifu(voidable) hadi ule muda upite ndipo itakuwa batili(void).Kuthibitisha hilo ibara hii inajieleza
"na sheria hiyo au hatua inayohusika itaendelea kuhesabiwa kuwa ni
halali hadi ama marekebisho yatakapofanywa au muda
uliowekwa na Mahakama Kuu utakapokwisha"
Hivyo basi muda wa mahakama ukiisha sheria hiyo ni batili kama haujaisha sheria hiyo ni halali,na watu wataendelea kuhukumiwa au kuhudumiwa kwa kutumia hiyo sheria hadi serikali itakapoirekebisha au muda husika kwisha.

Angalisho:

Jambo la kuzingatia hapa ni kwamba si lazima sheria inayopingana na katiba kuwa batili,sheria au kipengele cha sheria kinaweza kupingana na katiba lakini bado kisiwe batili.Ni mahakama peke yake ndiyo yenye uwezo wa kutangaza kipengele Fulani kuwa ni batili.Kwani mara nyingi inatokea kwamba kipengele Fulani ni batili lakini kinakuwa na saving provision ambayo inacure huo ubatili na kukifanya kiendelee kuwa halali.mfano katika kesi ya Mbushuu mahakama pamoja na kukubaliana kuwa "The death penalty, and hanging in particular, is inherently inhuman, cruel and Degrading" ilisema "The death penalty provision could be saved by Art 30(2) of the Constitution which allows a law to derogate or limit an individual's basic rights on public
interest grounds "

Hata hivyo kuokolewa huku kwa kipengele ambacho ni kinyume na katiba hakuji moja kwa moja(automatic) lazima kipengele hicho kikidhi jaribio au kipimo kimoja kinachoitwa proportionality test, kama ambavyo jaji anaeleza hapa.

"In the case of Kukutia Ole Pumbun the Court of
Appeal held that -
" a law which seeks to limit or derogate from the basic right of individual on the ground of public interest, will be saved by Article 30(2) of the constitution of it satisfied two requirements. Firstly, such law must be lawful in the sense that it is not arbitrary. It should make adequate safeguards against arbitrary decisions and provide effective, controls against abuse of those in authority when using the law. Secondly, the limitation imposed must not be more than necessary to achieve the legitimate object. This is also known as the principle of proportionality."
In the case of Julius Ndyanabo, the Court of Appeal added that;
''Fundamental rights are not illimitable. To treat them as being absolute is to invite anarchy in society. Those rights can be limited, but the limitation must not be arbitrary, unreasonable and disproportionate to any claim of state interest." Similarly, in Director of Public Prosecution vs Daudi Pete
[1993] TLR 22 the Court of Appeal held that a restriction on fundamental right must serve a legitimate purpose and has to be proportionate

".

Kikishindwa kukidhi kipimo hicho kipengele husika lazima kianguke.
Hivyo basi ni mpaka pale mahakama iakapomalizia kama hivi

"

Since the "takrima" provisions are violative of Articles 13(1), 13(2), 21(1) and 21(2) of the Constitution we declare the said provisions null and void and we order the same to be struck out of National Elections Act, (Cap 343 R.E.2002), forthwith

" .

Kwa kuongezea tu ni kwamba "In order to determine whether a particular law is repugnant or inconsistent with the fundamental rights it is the provisions of the act that must be looked at and not the manner in which the power under the provisions is actually exercised. Inconsistency or repugnancy does not depend upon the exercise of the power by virtue of the provisions in the Act but on the nature of the provisions themselves" .

4. Je,nini kitatokea kwa wafungwa waliokwisha hukumiwa mf.kifo iwapo mahakama itatengua sheria ya adhabu ya kifo kuwa ni kinyume na katiba na hivyo ni batili?

Bado watanyongwa endapo walihukumiwa kabla ya sheria hiyo kutangazwa kuwa kinyume cha katiba,kwani ni mahakama hiyohiyo ambayo iliwahukumu kifo hivyo uamuzi wake unaifunga.Lakini ikumbukwe kuwa kazi ya mahakama inaishia pale kwenye kuhukumu,utekelezaji wake sio kazi ya mahakama ni kazi ya serikali(executive).Hivyo iwapo let say umehukumiwa kunyongwa leo,kesho katika kesi nyingine mtu akachallenge adhabu ya kifo kuwa ni unconstitutional kama alivyofanya mbushuu dominic na wenzake,na mahakama ikakubaliana nao na kuwapa miezi 3 wairekebishe hiyo sheria serikali haikuirekebisha,na wewe uliyehukumiwa jana hukukata rufaa(japo kwenye kesi za hukumu ya kifo hii huwa automatic right) basi utanyongwa kama serikali ikiamua unyongwe na yule aliyechallenge adhabu hiyo atakuwa amesalimika kwani baada ya hiyo miezi mitatu adhabu ya kifo haitakuwa sheria tena.

Kila kesi ikija mahakamani watu kwa kutumia doctrine of precedents au stare decisis watatumia uamuzi wa mahakama hiyohiyo kujiokoa,unless kama uamuzi huo ulitupiliwa mbali na mahakama ya juu.Vilevile mahakama ikitangaza mara moja kuwa adhabu ya kifo ni kinyume cha katiba na hivyo ni batili,basi ni jukumu la AG kukata rufaa mahakama ya rufani au kutokata rufani ambapo itamaanisha amekubaliana na mahakama kuu. Hata hivyo atakayefaidika na umauzi huo ni huyu mshitakiwa wa mwisho wale waliokwisha hukumiwa huko nyuma hawana haki.


5. Je,kitendo cha kukata rufaa kinaweza kusimamisha utakelezajiwa hukumu ya mahakama ya chini inayokatiwa rufaa.

Katika kesi za kawaida zisizohusu katiba au haki za binadamu,uamuzi wa kukata rufaa au rufaa yenyewe haisimamishi moja kwa moja utekelezaji wa maamuzi ya mahakama ya chini.Utekelezaji utasimamishwa tu endapo mkata rufani amepeleka pia maombi ya kusimamisha utekelezaji wa hukumu(yaani stay of execution). Ifahamike wazi pia kuwa hata ukishinda kesi ya madai kama hukukazia hukumu Yule unayemdai hawezi kuanza kukulipa hivyo lazima upeleke maombi mengine baada ya hukumu kukazia hukumu hasa pale ambapo hataki kulipa kwa hiyari yake baada ya kuwa umemshinda kesi.
Kesi za katiba zinaongozwa na katiba yenyewe,basic right and duties enforcement Act,Appelate jurisdiction Act(kwa upande wa rufaa).Mtikila alishinda madai yake katika mahakama kuu,serikali ikawasilisha kusudio la kukata rufaa.Ieleweke kuwa kusudio la kukata rufaa sio rufaa wala maombi ya rufaa.Unaweza kupeleka kusudio la kukata rufaa halafu muda ukapita usikate rufaa bado maamuzi ya mahakama ya awali yatasimama tu na kuwa sheria.Ila kama serikali ilipeleka kusudio la kukata rufaa na baadaye maombi ya kukata rufaa,basi kwa kesi za katiba maombi hayo pia yanatumika kama stay of execution.Hivyo uamuzi wa mahakama kuu umesimamishwa kwa muda,ambapo mahakama ya rufani ikiuthibitisha utakuwa sheria na ikiutangua(quash) basi uamuzi wa mahakama kuu utaanguka na ule wa mahakama ya rufani kuwa sheria.

Yapo matukio mbalimbali ambapo serikali imewahi kuwasilisha kusudio la kukata rufaa,halafu baadaye ikaahirisha kupeleka maombi ya rufaa kwa kuwa ndani ya serikali yenyewe tayari kulikuwa namchakato wa kubadili sheria hiyoMfano halisi ni ile kesi ya takrima ambapo AG alikusudia kukata rufaa baadaye akawithdraw kwa kuwa tayari rais alishakuwa na nia ya serikali kubadili sheria hiyo.

6. Je,mahakama inapotoa mwanya wa serikali kurekebisha sheria yake ambayo yenyewe
imeiona kupingana na katiba je,hiyo itawakilishwa vipi serikalini?

Mwakilishi wa serikali katika kesi za kikatiba na madai zinazohusu serikali ni mwanasheria mkuu (AG), hivyo mahakama ikitoa uamuzi aina haja ya kuiandikia serikali ile hukumu inatosha kabisa kuwa notice kwa serikali kupitia AG(state attorney).

7. Unaposoma ibara ya 30(5) unaona tatizo gani kubwa ambalo linasababisha kutotekelezwa kwa hukumu ya mahakama kuu kuhusu wagombea binafsi?

Kwa maoni yangu mimi binafsi, ninaposoma ibara tajwa apo juu kuhusiana na suala la uekelezaji wa hukumu ya mgombea binafsi,kwa kweli Napata utata,nashindwa kuelewa ni kwa nini serikali haikukata rufaa kwenye ile hukumu ya mwanzo mwaka 1995 na inataka kukata sasa,je,hizo sio delaying techniques?Hii inaonesha nia isiyo ya dhati ya serikali kutekeleza na kuheshimu maamuzi ya mahakama zetu.Mahakama katika kesi ya MTIKILA V.AG (Lugakingira J),imesema wazi kabisa kuwa

"

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.

Na jaji Manento kumalizia kuwa;
"

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"
Hivyo hii hukumu ya jaji Manento ndiyo iliyotoa muda kwa serikali kurekebisha sheria zake hadi uchaguzi mkuu mwingine ufike, wakati ile ya Lugakingira ilitoa haki kwa wagombea binafsi bila kutaja muda maalumu wa serikali kufanya hivyo.Nadhani wakati sasa umefika wa hukumu hizi kukaziwa kwa kupata msimamo wa mahakama ya rufani kuhsu suala hili,ili tujue tuakuwa na mgombea binafsi ama la?Hivyo kwangu mimi tatizo apa sio ibara bali serikali yetu na bunge.
Katika hukumu ya kesi ile ya Uchaguzi wa Tunduru mahakama kuu haikugusia suala la mgombea binafsi,bali ilijikita sana katika interim injunction na atahri zake kwa taifa na wagombea wengine waliokwisha kuanza kampeni.Hivyo mtikila hakushindwa on the basis kwamba mgombea binafsi haruhusiwi Tanzania bali athari za amri ya mahakama juu ya watu waliokwisha tumia pesa zao,muda nk katika kampeni,pia haki yao ya kusikilizwa.Maamuzi hayo yalizingatia ibara ya 107A(2) na kesi ya ATILIO V.MBOWE iliyokuja kuthibitishwa na Glaxo Group Limited v Agri-Vet Limited. Hivyo ieleweke kwamba katika kesi hii mahakama kuu haikutengua maamuzi yake yenyewe kwenye kesi zilizopita kuhsu mgombea binafsi.Hata hivyo bado kesi hii ilitusumbua wengi,penginepo wengine tulifikiri majaji hapa walishindwa kutumia uwezo wao na mamlaka kisawa sawa kwa kuihofia serikali hasa ukichukulia majaji hawa(Jaji Chande Othman, Jaji Robert Makaramba na Jaji Amir Mruma) waliosikiliza kesi hiyo walikuwa tu wametoka kuteuliwa muda si mrefu na Rais,hivyo labda walihofia kumwangusha.
wa
Kwa kumalizia, nawashukuru sana wachangiaji wote wa mjadala huu na hasa mwanakijiji kwa kunipa nafasi hii kuieleimisha jamii juu ya mambo kadhaa yahusuyo sheria na katiba.Nafahamu bado wengi wetu tuna kiu ya kujua zaidi lakini kwa haya machache nadhani yatawasaidia.Asaneni sana.
Mwandishi anapatikana kwa barua pepe augustoons@yahoo.co.uk

 

[Augustoons]

Augustoons, umesema vyema na ndiyo sababu ya mimi kuweka hii ibara hapa. Naomba ukiweza chukua muda mfupi kutuandikia summary ya hapa halatu nitaiweka kwenye PDF ili watu wengine waweze kuisoma vizuri kwa urahisi na kujua mawili matatu kuhusu katiba yetu. Unaweza kuendeleza hilo hitimisho ulilolitoa hapo.

Ok,mkuu see the attachment

 

[Mzee Mwanakijiji]

Asante sana...