schlumberger
JF-Expert Member
- Jun 15, 2012
- 890
- 350
DU kwa hiyo tutazilinda zisitoke nje ya eneo la kupiga kura? ? ? ?
Jaji Lubuva Asema Sheria Inawaruhusu Raia Mita 200
Jaji Lubuva Asema Sheria Inawaruhusu Raia Mita 200
- Thread starter amilyroley
- Start date
respect wa boda
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 14, 2013
- 4,556
- 3,844
Nyie nendeni mkalale,
Habari ya kukaa tu, au kulinda kura ni juu yetu nyie haiwahusu!. Hivi watu wa ccm zimetimia kweli??
Awali mlikuwa mnakataa kuwa sheria hairuhusu, tena kupitia mkiti wenu kule Dom kawapotosha nanyi bila kutafuna mkajipotosha!! Haya sasa leo Jaji kawaumbua mmehamia blabalaaa nyingine mkimsubiri kilaza wenu aje awapotoe zaidi.!!
Shida sana Nchi hii ......!!
BACK TANGANYIKA
KIBARAone
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 26, 2015
- 642
- 243
Hivi unajua namna ccm wanavyoibaga kura?
Huo umbali wa mita 200 itaambatana na kukagua Magari yote yanayoingia ikiwamo na chupa za chai
Ng'wanangwa
JF-Expert Member
- Aug 28, 2010
- 10,827
- 4,184
mtaamini tu kama hawakukutana barabarani.
Salary Slip
Platinum Member
- Apr 3, 2012
- 52,789
- 165,501
Niliwahi leta uzi hapa nikisema majaji wa Tanzania ni mfano wa kuigwa na ni kimbilio la wanyonge.
Lubuva ni jaji lakini kwa sasa yuko katika mhimili mwingine hivyo tumsamehe bure tu.
Lubuva ni jaji lakini kwa sasa yuko katika mhimili mwingine hivyo tumsamehe bure tu.
king'amuzi
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 10, 2011
- 614
- 225
Kiama kwa wale majambazi wa kura
Amri za Mungu ni kumi.za serekali ni nyingi zaidi.usitii moja ukapuuzia nyingine.kama unataka mikusanyiko ya kisiasa au unataka kuwa mlinzi fuata sheria husika
Mwanamwana
Platinum Member
- Aug 1, 2011
- 9,603
- 22,717
SPEECH BY CHIEF JUSTICE OF TANZANIA, HON. MONAMED CHANDE OTHMAN DURING THE WORKSHOP ON "THE ROLE OF JUDICIARY IN SECURING ELECTION PROCESS IN TANZANIA: BEST PRACTICES AND CHALLENGES EMERGED IN 2010 TANZANIA AND 2013 KENYA ELECTIONS PETITIONS", 20TH OCTOBER 2015, NEW AFRICA HOTEL, DAR ES SALAAM.
Hon Chairman, National Election Commission,
Hon. Principal Judge,
Hon. Judges,
Hon. President of the Retired Judges Association,
Hon. Registrars,
Hon. National Director, Tanzania Human Rights Defender Coalition,
Members of the media,
Distinguished participants,
Ladies and Gentlemen
Good morning,
Let me begin by thanking the Organizers for honoring me with the privilege of officiating this Workshop on The Role of Judiciary in Securing Election Process in Tanzania: Best Practices and Challenges Emerged in 2010 Tanzania and 2013 Kenya Elections. Two weeks ago, we held a training workshop for 35 Judges of the High Court and 21 Registrars in Dodoma on a similar topic. This was the first of its own kind as regards the training of Registrars in managing election petitions. The Dodoma Training was a follow up to two training seminars conducted in Arusha and Dar es Salaam for all Justice of Appeal and a number of Judges of the High Court. Allow me to express my sincere gratitude to UNDP for making those training workshops a reality.
Honourable Participants, As only 35 Judges out of 84 Judges of the High Court have so far been exposed to a follow up training on managing election petitions, we took a purposeful decision to work together with the Tanzania Human Rights Defenders Coalition (THRDC) whom I sincerely thank, so that additional 35 Judges could also be trained. The selection include Judges who have not attended the earlier training Workshops. Empowering judges to best handle election petitions is a viable investment in democracy and the rule of law. It is also worth recalling that in the 2010 general election, the High Court of Tanzania received 44 election petitions out of which 17 went to full trial with the rest resolved at the preliminary stage.
Honourable Participants, it is an undisputed fact that 2015 General elections in Tanzania are in many respects quite animated and unique. Candidates from ten political parties are contesting in the elections. Four of the main opposition parties have formed a common list of candidates for both the Presidential and parliamentary elections. A political scientist, Prof. Staffan I Lindberg, in his book "Democracy and Elections in Africa" advanced the proposition that three dependent variables form the democratic qualities of an election, namely, participation, competition and legitimacy. The very first time the country had experienced vibrant election campaigns was in the year 1995 when Tanzania had its first multiparty elections. According to the National Electoral Commission, the constitutional authority for the conduct of elections 23, 253, 982 people in Tanzania have registered for the upcoming elections. While, respectively, over 70% of registered voters voted in the 2005 general elections, and 43 % did so in the 2010 elections, according to an opinion poll or study by Twaweza East Africa, a civil society organization, titled Let the People Speak, (Brief No 27, Sept 2015) it was found out that 99 % of the registered voters who were interviewed, responded that they intend to exercise their right to vote in the upcoming elections, on 25th October, 2015. Thus it is reasonable to say that participation and competition, two of the dependent variables that form the democratic qualities of an election, referred to earlier by Professor Lindberg are at a surge in the growth of our democracy. After 25th October we may wish to compare this with the voter turnout for the 2013 Kenya presidential and parliamentary elections which stood at a record 85.91%. Let us also not forget that the other indisputable standards of a democratic election, include transparency, integrity, security and accuracy.
Honourable Participants, an election is one of the foundations of a sound democracy system of governance.
"Competitive multiparty elections", says, Pippa Norris, in Why Election Fail, (p.4, Cambridge University press, 2015) are the bed rock for democratic accountability, linking citizens and the state, empowering electors to "throw the rascals out" if dissatisfied by unpopular leaders".
A free and fair election gives the assurance that those who emerge as winners are true elected representatives of the people. Electoral dispute resolution mechanism (in our case the courts) should be appreciated as a climax or finale of an electoral process. Electoral process cannot be said to be complete or to have concluded when there are still pending election petitions in courts. In dealing with election petitions, courts also play an important role of safeguarding democracy and safeguarding and protecting the electoral rights created by Statute or law. This is one of the reasons that elections petitions need to be accorded priority, expeditiously speed tracked and disposed of in a timely fashion.
Honourable Participants, Looking at the history, Courts in the past had experienced delays in the disposal of election petitions. They were not disposed within the initial trial time limit provided by the law, that is, one year. We had to seek leave from the Minister of Constitutional and Legal Affairs for a six months extend of time for the determination of the pending petitions. Judging from the 2010 general elections, the situation has approved appreciably. The Court's performance has been much healthier.
Honourable Participants, for the upcoming election, 2015, we need boost our performance in respect of election petitions. The objective and target for the Court is the fair, impartial and independent disposal of election petitions within a shortest possible time. An election could easily be compromised when a court of law is unable to property determine an election petition. As the guardian of the Constitution and the law and with the ultimate responsibility for the dispensation of justice, we should be prepared to hold the reins in the timely determination of parliamentary and local election disputes. The electorate needs to be certain whom they have freely and fairly chosen as their elected representative, not unclear who among the various rival contenders from the various political parties that contested an election has been duly chosen. Ultimately, it is also in public interest to diligently attend to election petitions and for the very election process to see its finality.
Honourable Participants, Our strategy and plan of action for the disposal of election petitions arising out of the 2015 general elections must inevitably be informed by past experience and best practices, including those from other EAC Member States, including Kenya.
A lesson from history. The first factor that had repeatedly contributed to a delay in the timely disposal of election petitions by the court in the past was the lack of financial resources. While we have continued to convince and submit that an election process involves a chain of events that ultimately culminates with the final determination of an election dispute if there is one instituted in Court under the Elections Act and other relevant law, the financial resources allocated by the Government and by International partners, including the U.N system to the 2015 elections hardly combines or incorporates financial resources for the Courts' proper determination of the upcoming election petitions. Both the Court and the Attorney General, who invariably is impleaded in an election petition have to be financially empowered if we are to dispose of the election petitions efficiently and timely. Judging from participation and competition, for planning and readiness, we predict that this time around we will see a rise in election petitions compared to the 2005 and 2010 elections. So, the immediate allocation to the court of financial resources for the handling of election petitions is a matter of urgency.
Honourable Participants, the second factor responsible for delays in election cases has to do with lack of seriousness on the part of litigants. Some petitioners after lodging cases in Court do not diligently prosecute them for example by failing to deposit the amount for security for costs within a reasonable time or applying for the determination of the amount to be deposited in court as security. On the other hand, some respondents strive to do everything possible to frustrate the serving of election petition upon them.
A third factor causing delays is the dilatory practices of advocates some of whom deploy all sorts of technicalities as a delaying tactic to prolong the trial and thus allow the incumbent to remain in the elected seat while the case is going on before the Court. A few of those technicalities include the raising of frivolous interlocutory applications, preliminary objections on facts and calling for examination non-essential witnesses. To curb all that, the Court has decided to enhance the case management of election petitions, to closely superintend the procedures involved and control the court process more affirmatively.
Lack of experience of both the bench and the public and private bar in handling election petitions cases is yet another cause of delay. Unlike other civil and criminal cases, election petitions are instituted in courts every after five years, have a distinctive special procedure and have developed a set of jurisprudence.
Honourable distinguished, to curb or eliminate the above mentioned and other causes of delays both the bench (Judges and magistrates) and bar (advocates) requires the comprehensive acquisition of knowledge of the procedures governing election disputes in Court and a familiarization of the relevant jurisprudence. This Workshop as we all appreciate is intended to fill and seal that gap. The Judiciary has also ameliorated court procedures governing election petitions in order to facilitate their fair and expeditions disposal.
Honourable Participants, the demand for the timely disposal of election petitions is high. Inexcusable delays in disposing election petitions heighten political tension; cause lots of anxiety among the voters amethe voted and may even lead to a breakdown or collapse of law and order. Inordinate delays in determining elections petitions also expose the judiciary to negative publicity, thus eroding public confidence and trust. Courts and the legal profession should therefore strive to dispose cases within the time provided by law.
It is through a Workshop like this that we can learn from past experience, tap from our own and Kenya's best practices, continue to build up expertise and professionalism and improve our capacity to determine election cases within the shortest time possible. The public needs to be aware too that a court of law should not sacrifice justice on the pretext of its swift administration nor should Courts and the legal profession drag petitions inordinately in order to strangle justice to which it is subservient.
Honourable Participants, in concluding allow me to call upon Judges who will handle election petitions, to do so more diligently and with added professionalism now that they will be equipped through this workshop with practical skills, best practices and increased knowledge on electoral law and jurisprudence.
Judges must of course continue to exhibit fairness, impartiality and independence in the determination of election disputes as they do in relation to their judicial duties.
Let me also refresh your memory on the insightful words of Winston Churchill who put it this way:
" At the bottom of all tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into a little both, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper- no amount of rhetoric of voluminous discussion can possible diminish the overwhelming importance of the point".
The Judiciary and the legal profession must necessarily play their roles in ensuring the purity of the 2015 elections and in particular the conduct of a free, fair and peaceful election by the handling of the approaching election petitions attentively, timely, diligently and professionally. This should be our contribution to a free, fair and peaceful 2015 election in Tanzania. It would be a final jewel to the crown of our democracy.
Having said so, I hereby announce this Workshop as officially launched.
CHIEF JUSTICE
HON. MOHAMED CHANDE OTHMAN
Hon Chairman, National Election Commission,
Hon. Principal Judge,
Hon. Judges,
Hon. President of the Retired Judges Association,
Hon. Registrars,
Hon. National Director, Tanzania Human Rights Defender Coalition,
Members of the media,
Distinguished participants,
Ladies and Gentlemen
Good morning,
Let me begin by thanking the Organizers for honoring me with the privilege of officiating this Workshop on The Role of Judiciary in Securing Election Process in Tanzania: Best Practices and Challenges Emerged in 2010 Tanzania and 2013 Kenya Elections. Two weeks ago, we held a training workshop for 35 Judges of the High Court and 21 Registrars in Dodoma on a similar topic. This was the first of its own kind as regards the training of Registrars in managing election petitions. The Dodoma Training was a follow up to two training seminars conducted in Arusha and Dar es Salaam for all Justice of Appeal and a number of Judges of the High Court. Allow me to express my sincere gratitude to UNDP for making those training workshops a reality.
Honourable Participants, As only 35 Judges out of 84 Judges of the High Court have so far been exposed to a follow up training on managing election petitions, we took a purposeful decision to work together with the Tanzania Human Rights Defenders Coalition (THRDC) whom I sincerely thank, so that additional 35 Judges could also be trained. The selection include Judges who have not attended the earlier training Workshops. Empowering judges to best handle election petitions is a viable investment in democracy and the rule of law. It is also worth recalling that in the 2010 general election, the High Court of Tanzania received 44 election petitions out of which 17 went to full trial with the rest resolved at the preliminary stage.
Honourable Participants, it is an undisputed fact that 2015 General elections in Tanzania are in many respects quite animated and unique. Candidates from ten political parties are contesting in the elections. Four of the main opposition parties have formed a common list of candidates for both the Presidential and parliamentary elections. A political scientist, Prof. Staffan I Lindberg, in his book "Democracy and Elections in Africa" advanced the proposition that three dependent variables form the democratic qualities of an election, namely, participation, competition and legitimacy. The very first time the country had experienced vibrant election campaigns was in the year 1995 when Tanzania had its first multiparty elections. According to the National Electoral Commission, the constitutional authority for the conduct of elections 23, 253, 982 people in Tanzania have registered for the upcoming elections. While, respectively, over 70% of registered voters voted in the 2005 general elections, and 43 % did so in the 2010 elections, according to an opinion poll or study by Twaweza East Africa, a civil society organization, titled Let the People Speak, (Brief No 27, Sept 2015) it was found out that 99 % of the registered voters who were interviewed, responded that they intend to exercise their right to vote in the upcoming elections, on 25th October, 2015. Thus it is reasonable to say that participation and competition, two of the dependent variables that form the democratic qualities of an election, referred to earlier by Professor Lindberg are at a surge in the growth of our democracy. After 25th October we may wish to compare this with the voter turnout for the 2013 Kenya presidential and parliamentary elections which stood at a record 85.91%. Let us also not forget that the other indisputable standards of a democratic election, include transparency, integrity, security and accuracy.
Honourable Participants, an election is one of the foundations of a sound democracy system of governance.
"Competitive multiparty elections", says, Pippa Norris, in Why Election Fail, (p.4, Cambridge University press, 2015) are the bed rock for democratic accountability, linking citizens and the state, empowering electors to "throw the rascals out" if dissatisfied by unpopular leaders".
A free and fair election gives the assurance that those who emerge as winners are true elected representatives of the people. Electoral dispute resolution mechanism (in our case the courts) should be appreciated as a climax or finale of an electoral process. Electoral process cannot be said to be complete or to have concluded when there are still pending election petitions in courts. In dealing with election petitions, courts also play an important role of safeguarding democracy and safeguarding and protecting the electoral rights created by Statute or law. This is one of the reasons that elections petitions need to be accorded priority, expeditiously speed tracked and disposed of in a timely fashion.
Honourable Participants, Looking at the history, Courts in the past had experienced delays in the disposal of election petitions. They were not disposed within the initial trial time limit provided by the law, that is, one year. We had to seek leave from the Minister of Constitutional and Legal Affairs for a six months extend of time for the determination of the pending petitions. Judging from the 2010 general elections, the situation has approved appreciably. The Court's performance has been much healthier.
Honourable Participants, for the upcoming election, 2015, we need boost our performance in respect of election petitions. The objective and target for the Court is the fair, impartial and independent disposal of election petitions within a shortest possible time. An election could easily be compromised when a court of law is unable to property determine an election petition. As the guardian of the Constitution and the law and with the ultimate responsibility for the dispensation of justice, we should be prepared to hold the reins in the timely determination of parliamentary and local election disputes. The electorate needs to be certain whom they have freely and fairly chosen as their elected representative, not unclear who among the various rival contenders from the various political parties that contested an election has been duly chosen. Ultimately, it is also in public interest to diligently attend to election petitions and for the very election process to see its finality.
Honourable Participants, Our strategy and plan of action for the disposal of election petitions arising out of the 2015 general elections must inevitably be informed by past experience and best practices, including those from other EAC Member States, including Kenya.
A lesson from history. The first factor that had repeatedly contributed to a delay in the timely disposal of election petitions by the court in the past was the lack of financial resources. While we have continued to convince and submit that an election process involves a chain of events that ultimately culminates with the final determination of an election dispute if there is one instituted in Court under the Elections Act and other relevant law, the financial resources allocated by the Government and by International partners, including the U.N system to the 2015 elections hardly combines or incorporates financial resources for the Courts' proper determination of the upcoming election petitions. Both the Court and the Attorney General, who invariably is impleaded in an election petition have to be financially empowered if we are to dispose of the election petitions efficiently and timely. Judging from participation and competition, for planning and readiness, we predict that this time around we will see a rise in election petitions compared to the 2005 and 2010 elections. So, the immediate allocation to the court of financial resources for the handling of election petitions is a matter of urgency.
Honourable Participants, the second factor responsible for delays in election cases has to do with lack of seriousness on the part of litigants. Some petitioners after lodging cases in Court do not diligently prosecute them for example by failing to deposit the amount for security for costs within a reasonable time or applying for the determination of the amount to be deposited in court as security. On the other hand, some respondents strive to do everything possible to frustrate the serving of election petition upon them.
A third factor causing delays is the dilatory practices of advocates some of whom deploy all sorts of technicalities as a delaying tactic to prolong the trial and thus allow the incumbent to remain in the elected seat while the case is going on before the Court. A few of those technicalities include the raising of frivolous interlocutory applications, preliminary objections on facts and calling for examination non-essential witnesses. To curb all that, the Court has decided to enhance the case management of election petitions, to closely superintend the procedures involved and control the court process more affirmatively.
Lack of experience of both the bench and the public and private bar in handling election petitions cases is yet another cause of delay. Unlike other civil and criminal cases, election petitions are instituted in courts every after five years, have a distinctive special procedure and have developed a set of jurisprudence.
Honourable distinguished, to curb or eliminate the above mentioned and other causes of delays both the bench (Judges and magistrates) and bar (advocates) requires the comprehensive acquisition of knowledge of the procedures governing election disputes in Court and a familiarization of the relevant jurisprudence. This Workshop as we all appreciate is intended to fill and seal that gap. The Judiciary has also ameliorated court procedures governing election petitions in order to facilitate their fair and expeditions disposal.
Honourable Participants, the demand for the timely disposal of election petitions is high. Inexcusable delays in disposing election petitions heighten political tension; cause lots of anxiety among the voters amethe voted and may even lead to a breakdown or collapse of law and order. Inordinate delays in determining elections petitions also expose the judiciary to negative publicity, thus eroding public confidence and trust. Courts and the legal profession should therefore strive to dispose cases within the time provided by law.
It is through a Workshop like this that we can learn from past experience, tap from our own and Kenya's best practices, continue to build up expertise and professionalism and improve our capacity to determine election cases within the shortest time possible. The public needs to be aware too that a court of law should not sacrifice justice on the pretext of its swift administration nor should Courts and the legal profession drag petitions inordinately in order to strangle justice to which it is subservient.
Honourable Participants, in concluding allow me to call upon Judges who will handle election petitions, to do so more diligently and with added professionalism now that they will be equipped through this workshop with practical skills, best practices and increased knowledge on electoral law and jurisprudence.
Judges must of course continue to exhibit fairness, impartiality and independence in the determination of election disputes as they do in relation to their judicial duties.
Let me also refresh your memory on the insightful words of Winston Churchill who put it this way:
" At the bottom of all tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into a little both, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper- no amount of rhetoric of voluminous discussion can possible diminish the overwhelming importance of the point".
The Judiciary and the legal profession must necessarily play their roles in ensuring the purity of the 2015 elections and in particular the conduct of a free, fair and peaceful election by the handling of the approaching election petitions attentively, timely, diligently and professionally. This should be our contribution to a free, fair and peaceful 2015 election in Tanzania. It would be a final jewel to the crown of our democracy.
Having said so, I hereby announce this Workshop as officially launched.
CHIEF JUSTICE
HON. MOHAMED CHANDE OTHMAN
About the Tanzania Human Rights Defenders Coalition
WORKSHOP ON THE ROLE OF JUDICIARY IN SECURING ELECTION
PROCESS IN TANZANIA
BEST PRACTICES AND CHALLENGES EMERGED IN 2010 TANZANIA
AND 2013 KENYA ELECTION PETITIONS
TO BE HELD ON 20 TH OCTOBER 2015 AT THE NEW AFRICA HOTEL
DAR ES SALAAM
The Tanzania Human Rights Defenders Coalition (THRDC) is a membership Organization in Tanzania, with over a hundred members, both individual Human Rights Defenders and Human Rights Organizations membership working towards enhancing the security and protection of Human Rights Defenders (HRDs) in Tanzania. THRDC's long-term goals are to see a free and secured environment for human rights defenders in Tanzania, and to ensure HRDs in our country are able to carry out their essential work free from harm and repression, in accordance with the
UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders of 1998.
The main aims of this Coalition are to, inter alia, work towards enhanced security and protection of the HRDs in the United Republic of Tanzania. It also intends to strengthen regional and international interventions towards protection and promotion of the rights and responsibilities ofthe HRDs. The ultimate result of all these, as this coalition visualizes is a contribution to creation of safer working environment for the HRDs. It has been and still intends to work closely with different stakeholders including local, regional and international HRDs' organizations and coalitions; individual HRDs; development partners; United Nations; duty bearers and other relevant stakeholders.
Election Security
Elections times are always difficult time for many actors such as politicians, state institutions,non-state actors, the media, judiciary and the public. Electro process is one of the key democratic processes that every one may wish to participate equally and safely. Very often and in many parts of the world elections have been conducted coupled with a lot of violence, marred by various types of malfeasance and electoral fraud.
It is through democratic elections whereby people chose better policies for their welfare, and it is through democratic election where people change regimes and leadership. It is therefore imperative to discuss election security towards Tanzania 2015 electro process.
An electoral process is constituted from a complex series of interdependent sub-processes,generically including: civic education, voter education, voter registration, party registration,candidate nomination, the campaign period, polling operations, tallying and counting, dispute resolution and the official announcement of results. Each of these sub-processes can be characterized by different types of threats,influenced by the particular approach adopted, cross-influence between sub-processes and the individual circumstances of the election.Currently,Tanzania electro process is still in the first phase of the election cycle. Voter registration and election campaigns are the main activitiesresurfacing the election cycle at the moment. Theforthcoming Election Workshop with Judges in Tanzania will therefore discuss,forecast and analyze security issues during election petitions.
Election Security is a must shared responsibility that attract many actors. Election security thusrefers to security of election monitors and observers, security of voters, security of votes,security of political candidates, security of polling stations, security of voting facilities,security of electro systems and results. The nature of 2015 general election makes it vulnerable to a range of security threats against participants, infrastructure, information and materials.
Why Conducting Election Petitions Workshop
Securing election process is not one person duty but rather a multi-stakeholders responsibility.The state through its security organs such as the police, judiciary and electro bodies has the primary role in securing election process. Other stakeholders like development partners, CSOs,religious leaders, media and international community play a passive role like secondary stakeholders in election security. However, state apparatus has been condemned most of the time to be the main source of election insecurity. For instance, Police Force has been condemned to suppress freedom of association and expression especially for opposition parties and in Malawi,Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal, and Egypt etc. Therefore, to avoid this bad practice in Tanzania,THRDC conducted security dialogues and trainings to almost all key election stakeholders particularly the police force, media and CSOs.
The United Republic of Tanzania conducts the 5 th General election on October 25 th 2015 since the reinstatement of multiparty system in 1992. Over the last year's elections Tanzania experienced a lot of election petitions filed by election contestants opposing election results arising from claims of uncounted votes, fraudulent behaviors by candidates or claims of invalid candidates to mention a few. This lead to influx of cases to courts of laws vested with jurisdiction to try election petitions mainly the high court with jurisdiction to try parliamentary petitions. For example in 2010 general Election, the High Court of Tanzania received 44 election petitions. Out that of the 44 petitions, 17 went to full trial while the rest were resolved at the preliminary stage.
Election petitions are an integral wider part of the electoral process. Decisions of election petitions may have damaging impact to the public if not handled fairly and promptly. Elections are very sensitive in countries with emerging and young democracies like Tanzania, election petitions need to be handled with care and expediency without causing unnecessary chaos before and after the ruling the fact which might end up resulting to violence and serious violations of human rights.
During 2010 Elections in Tanzania and 2013 in Kenya, the courts have made significant decision on various issues that require analysis and assessment of the jurisprudence. Therefore, theworkshop will digest and identify contentious issues for improvement. Finally, the capacity of the Judiciary to handle election dispute will be sharpened.
Objectives and Expected Outcomes
The workshop will bring together 40 High Court judges and Registrar of High Courts.THRDC has also invited Advocate Keth Kilonzo an election petitions expert from Kenya and Judge Robert Makaramba from Tanzania. Both Adv Kilonzo and Hon Justice Makaramba will present a comprehensive analysis of the Tanzanian and Kenyan jurisprudence emerged in 2007,2010 and 2013 Elections in the Region.
Objective of the workshop are;
- To digest 2007, 2010 and 2013 election court decisions by highlighting contentious issues and best practices from Kenya and Tanzania election.
- To prepare judges and registrar adequately for handling election petitions.
- To have an effective and expediency electoral dispute resolution mechanisms.
- Familiarizing the members of the Judiciary with the unique task that lies ahead in the coming general election
- To identify electoral reforms agenda that has emerged after 2007, 2010 and 2013 election petitions.
Expected outcome;
- Improved capacity of Judges and High Court Registrar in handling election petitions fairly and promptly
- Election disputes during 2015 General election settled amicably, fairly and promptly to avoid violence and conflicts.
- Challenges and errors recorded from the 2010 election petitions well analyzed and cured.
- Judicial officers and other actors provided with relevant materials such as court decisions and electoral laws.
- The character and evolution of judicial decision making from 2007, 2013 and 2010 elections well understood.
The Role of the Facilitators
- Identify and analyse judicial decision emerged from Kenyan Presidential election petitions in 2007 and 2013. (Advocate Kilonzo)
- Identify and analyse at least 10 contentious judicial decision emerged in 2007 and 2013 from Parliamentary election petitions in Kenya (Advocate Kilonzo)
- Provide practical guidance and knowledge, experience sharing from Kenya (Advocate Kilonzo)
- Share best experiences on how electoral disputes were handled in Kenya (Advocate Kilonzo)
- Identify and analyse judicial decisions emerged from Tanzania Parliamentary election petitions in 2010 (Justice Makaramba)
- Present errors and challenges encountered when handling 2010 election petitions (Justice Makaramba)
- Remind Judicial officers sources of election petitions and applicable electoral laws (Justice Makaramba)
- Assist the Coalition to identify learning materials such as court decision and relevant laws for printing. ( Adv. Kilonzo and Justice Makaramba)
.......................................................END......................................
Jay One
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 12, 2010
- 18,535
- 20,732
Look this zero brained...!!!
Can you define unlawful assembly..? Shit, CCM kazi kukariri vitu tu...!!!
Mita 200 is lawful assembly, that is why is legally mentioned in that Law...!!! Kitu kinatamwa na Law ya 200 meter mnaweza kukaa, ww unaanza kusema ni unlawful assembly...? Hizi shule mlikariri kama Magufuli, zero zero zero kabisa kama Ole Sendeka na Bulembo...!!
CCM wote 0 kabisa..!!!
CCM out...!!
RockSpider
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 16, 2014
- 6,859
- 2,762
Malofa wakimaliza kupiga kura watakaa kwa utulivu huku wakijihesabu kujua idadi ya kura walizo piga!!! Mpaka hapo CCM hawana pa kutokea ...
A view to a kill
JF-Expert Member
- Jun 9, 2015
- 2,213
- 1,272
Makonda atatenguaje ile kauli yake aliyotoa kanisani juzi?
Lambert Mende
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 16, 2015
- 210
- 43
Ndio niini hyooo?na wwe unafikiri hapa JF ndio amejificha na hyo karatasi yako ya mshahara?
Na wwe pia sikia harufu hyo hyo!
lameckkawawa
JF-Expert Member
- Sep 13, 2015
- 944
- 665
Ahahaah nchi inaendeshwa na sheria na sheria imetuluhusu
mkono wa nyoka
JF-Expert Member
- Sep 21, 2015
- 334
- 54
KWAKWELI LEO NIMEGUNDUA JAMBO LA HUZUNI SANA KATIKA MAISHA YANGU YA TAREHE 25. 10. 2015.
Kituo changu cha kupigia kura kinaitwa Sabasaba..
Mita 200 mashariki ni kituo cha polisi cha kata
Mita 200 magharibi, kambi ndogo ya jeshi wilaya
Mita 200 kaskazini, ofisi za CCM mkoa
Mitaa 200 kusini, gereza la mkoa.
Mita 200 kusini magharibi ambapo ni jirani na nyumbani ndipo zilipo ofisi za FFU Mkoa...
Hivi hakuna utaratibu wa kubadili kituo wajameni?
Kituo changu cha kupigia kura kinaitwa Sabasaba..
Mita 200 mashariki ni kituo cha polisi cha kata
Mita 200 magharibi, kambi ndogo ya jeshi wilaya
Mita 200 kaskazini, ofisi za CCM mkoa
Mitaa 200 kusini, gereza la mkoa.
Mita 200 kusini magharibi ambapo ni jirani na nyumbani ndipo zilipo ofisi za FFU Mkoa...
Hivi hakuna utaratibu wa kubadili kituo wajameni?
Similar Discussions
-
Wicknell Chivayo is implicated in vote rigging in South and East African countries.
- Started by Quinine
- Replies: 4
-
-
Court strikes out Petition against Kawempe Mayor Sserunjoji- Started by Archival Sense
- Replies: 1
-
Government of the opportunists by the opportunists for the opportunists- Started by Smartkahn
- Replies: 4
-
Court strikes out 97 affidavits in Rubongoya’s election petition
- Started by Da Dona
- Replies: 0
