Judicial philosophy of our courts

[Nyani Ngabu]

What is the juducial philosophy of our courts, especially the highest court? Does any one know? Or they don't even have a juducial philosophy....they are just all over the place...

 

[WomanOfSubstance]

Hakuna nchi isiyokuwa na jurisprudence yake..( which is the philosophy you are refering to kama nakupata vizuri)! Mahakama zetu zinaegemea kwenye jurisprudence of equality - kila mtu ni sawa mbele ya sheria..hakuna tajiri wala masikini, hakuna aliye juu ya sheria..na katiba yetu ndivyo inavyosema.

Mahakama zetu zina utaratibu wa kufuata percedents..hivyo mahakama ya juu kama Court of Appeal inabidi iwe na uangalifu zaidi ili isiweke precedent mbaya for the lower courts to follow..na ndio maana kwenye kesi nzito hukaa FULL BENCH!... mtizamo wa majaji nao uko tofauti..kuna wenye bold spirit..kuna ambao ni timid... kuna wenye ku dissent etc...
Ila labda nikuulize ulitaka kusema nini labda..fafanua zaidi tafadhali.

 

[WomanOfSubstance]

What is the juducial philosophy of our courts, especially the highest court? Does any one know? Or they don't even have a juducial philosophy....they are just all over the place...

Our courts/judges may opt for either judicial activisms where they may be more bold by deciding on various issues other than the ones that have been brought before it to adjudicate upon...they may even circumvent the doctrine of STARRE DECIS ( Precedent set by a higher court) by distinguishing facts etc..all for building case law. Others may employ the so called judicial restraint by just sticking strictly to matters that have been brought before. It all depends really.

 

[Nyani Ngabu]

Hakuna nchi isiyokuwa na jurisprudence yake..( which is the philosophy you are refering to kama nakupata vizuri)! Mahakama zetu zinaegemea kwenye jurisprudence of equality - kila mtu ni sawa mbele ya sheria..hakuna tajiri wala masikini, hakuna aliye juu ya sheria..na katiba yetu ndivyo inavyosema.

Mahakama zetu zina utaratibu wa kufuata percedents..hivyo mahakama ya juu kama Court of Appeal inabidi iwe na uangalifu zaidi ili isiweke precedent mbaya for the lower courts to follow..na ndio maana kwenye kesi nzito hukaa FULL BENCH!... mtizamo wa majaji nao uko tofauti..kuna wenye bold spirit..kuna ambao ni timid... kuna wenye ku dissent etc...
Ila labda nikuulize ulitaka kusema nini labda..fafanua zaidi tafadhali.

Asante WoS, apart from our resident Philadelphia lawyer (the great Kuhani) who has been AWOL for a while, you are the first one that came to my mind that you'd at least give this topic a crack.

Nadhani falsafa kuu ya mahakama zote ni kutenda haki kwa kufuata sheria zilizoko kwenye katiba na kwenye vitabi vingine vya sheria. Na kwa ufahamu wangu mimi mahakama nyingi bila kujali ni za wapi hufuata precedents.

Kwa hiyo, nilichokuwa nataka kusema ni hiki: Ingawa katika kusoma soma kwangu mambo ya sheria sijaona definition inayokubalika kuhusu nini maana ya 'judicial philosophy', nilichokuwa nataka kuuliza ni jinsi gani majaji wetu wanatafsiri sheria kulingana na views/ beliefs zao pamoja na imani au maono yao ya kiitikadi (ideological convictions).

Nikupe mfano kuhusu Supreme court ya Marekani ambayo ina jopo la majaji 9. Watano kati ya hao ni judicial conservatives na wanne waliobaki aidha ni ma liberal au wana mrengo wa kati kidogo. Na mara nyingi kwenye maamuzi yenye utata ndio utaona wanasimama wapi kwenye ideological spectrum maana maamuzi huwaga ni 5-4 in favor of the ones with the conservative leanings.

Nina hakika kabisa kwa mfano suala la abortion likipelekwa tena mezani, Justices Antonin Scalia na Clarence Thomas watapiga kura kui-overturn Roe v. Wade kwa sababu wao ni conservatives who believe in the sanctity of human life.

Sijui kama kama nimeeleweka lakini hicho ndicho nilichokuwa nauliza....kwamba ideologically majaji wetu wanasukumwa na convictions gani katika kutoa maamuzi.

 

[WomanOfSubstance]

Asante WoS, apart from our resident Philadelphia lawyer (the great Kuhani) who has been AWOL for a while, you are the first one that came to my mind that you'd at least give this topic a crack.

Nadhani falsafa kuu ya mahakama zote ni kutenda haki kwa kufuata sheria zilizoko kwenye katiba na kwenye vitabi vingine vya sheria. Na kwa ufahamu wangu mimi mahakama nyingi bila kujali ni za wapi hufuata precedents.

Kwa hiyo, nilichokuwa nataka kusema ni hiki: Ingawa katika kusoma soma kwangu mambo ya sheria sijaona definition inayokubalika kuhusu nini maana ya 'judicial philosophy', nilichokuwa nataka kuuliza ni jinsi gani majaji wetu wanatafsiri sheria kulingana na views/ beliefs zao pamoja na imani au maono yao ya kiitikadi (ideological convictions).

Nikupe mfano kuhusu Supreme court ya Marekani ambayo ina jopo la majaji 9. Watano kati ya hao ni judicial conservatives na wanne waliobaki aidha ni ma liberal au wana mrengo wa kati kidogo. Na mara nyingi kwenye maamuzi yenye utata ndio utaona wanasimama wapi kwenye ideological spectrum maana maamuzi huwaga ni 5-4 in favor of the ones with the conservative leanings.

Nina hakika kabisa kwa mfano suala la abortion likipelekwa tena mezani, Justices Antonin Scalia na Clarence Thomas watapiga kura kui-overturn Roe v. Wade kwa sababu wao ni conservatives who believe in the sanctity of human life.

Sijui kama kama nimeeleweka lakini hicho ndicho nilichokuwa nauliza....kwamba ideologically majaji wetu wanasukumwa na convictions gani katika kutoa maamuzi.

Nilihisi ulikuwa unataka kuzungumzia hilo ila sikuwa na uhakika na ndio maana nikarudi mara mbili kujaribu kuchokoa nijue hasa ndicho ulichotaka kusema.
Bahati mbaya sana ukiangalia kesi ambazo zimewahi kupelekwa mahakamani ku test zali... ni ama za kisiasa zaidi na sijawahi kuona kesi kama hizo ulizotaja ( abortion etc) zenye kutikisa imani za majaji wetu ili angalau ujue wamesimamia wapi... sijui kwa kweli ni jaji yupi kwa mfano unaweza kumweka kwenye kundi la liberali au hafidhina. Ila najua kwa mfano kuna au walikuwepo majaji kama Justice Mwalusanya ambao piga- ua they will remain bold judges wenye kuipindua ladha nzima na mtizamo wa kisheria kwenye maswala ya haki za Binadamu.
Ngoja tuwasikie na wengne wanasemaje.

 

[Ngambo Ngali]

Hakuna nchi isiyokuwa na jurisprudence yake..( which is the philosophy you are refering to kama nakupata vizuri)! Mahakama zetu zinaegemea kwenye jurisprudence of equality - kila mtu ni sawa mbele ya sheria..hakuna tajiri wala masikini, hakuna aliye juu ya sheria..na katiba yetu ndivyo inavyosema.

Mahakama zetu zina utaratibu wa kufuata percedents..hivyo mahakama ya juu kama Court of Appeal inabidi iwe na uangalifu zaidi ili isiweke precedent mbaya for the lower courts to follow..na ndio maana kwenye kesi nzito hukaa FULL BENCH!... mtizamo wa majaji nao uko tofauti..kuna wenye bold spirit..kuna ambao ni timid... kuna wenye ku dissent etc...
Ila labda nikuulize ulitaka kusema nini labda..fafanua zaidi tafadhali.

WOS, Samahani kidogo, hapo naomba niqualify kidogo mahakama zinatakiwa kufuata precedent lakini hazifanyi hiyo hata kidogo. Ndio sababu ya kutokuwa na uhakika wa mtazamo wa sheria tatizo likitokea.

 

[Ngambo Ngali]

Our courts/judges may opt for either judicial activisms where they may be more bold by deciding on various issues other than the ones that have been brought before it to adjudicate upon...they may even circumvent the doctrine of STARRE DECIS ( Precedent set by a higher court) by distinguishing facts etc..all for building case law. Others may employ the so called judicial restraint by just sticking strictly to matters that have been brought before. It all depends really.

WOS, they have never opted to be so. Sincerly, judicial activism is a dream in our country.

 

[Nyani Ngabu]

Dah....mbona wachangiaje wachache hapa?