Maelezo ya Bernard K. Membe, Kuhusu Fedha za Deni la Libya

[okonkwo jr]

MEMBE Ndo mududu gani humu jf,eti anawafuasi wengi! lol!

 

[OgwaluMapesa]

Anaweweseka nini??si amesema mke wa rais atampigania awe rais

 

[kagombe]

picha inaanza sasa!!!!za msikiti

 

[Marire]

Huyu hapa

 

[ikhlas]

Membe,anaonyesha wazi haya manenop amefundishwa ayaeseme,tena kafundishwa na mtu zaidi ya mmoja.Alivyoanza maelezo ilionekana kama ni mtu ambae hausiki ila tu anataka kueka mambo sawa,Lakini mwisho maelezo yake yanaonyesha kua aliiba,japo sio kwa kiwango tunacho kisema.Kwanini kwenye maelezo amejaribu ku compare tukio hili na matukio ya EPA na ESCROW? ni kwa sababu analipoza ili tuyaone ya wenzie makubwa na la kwake ni dog😵k sawa wewe sio mwizi,thibitisha kua hukuiba,na kaka ako atakua amekusaidia hili.Maana hio wizara ilikua ya kwake kabla hajawa RAHISI,kivyovyote process au uanja wa mazungumzo kati TZ na LBY ulianza na yeye.

shauri zenu,tutakutana NEC

 

[ALL-NASIRY]

Hayo maelezo yote ni propaganda.bado tutasikia mengi sana.

 

[Faridi]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA
AT DAR ES SALAAM

(CORAM: RUTAKANGWA,J, A., KALEGEYA, J, A., And MASSATI,J, A.)

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 147 OF 2010

1. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE GREAT
SOCIALIST PEOPLE'S LIBYAN
ARAB JAMAHIRIYA ............................. APPLICANTS
2. THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL

VERSUS

MEIS INDUSTRIES LIMITED ............................................... RESPONDENT

(Application for Extension of time to file Application for stay of Execution and
Application for stay of Execution from the decision of the High Court of
Tanzania at Dar es Salaam)

(Karua, J.)
dated the 26th day of October, 2010
in
Civil Case No. 124 of 2010

--------------

RULING OF THE COURT

18 March & 12 July, 2011

KALEGEYA, J. A.:


The Applicants, by way of a Notice of Motion filed under s.4 (2) of

the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (Cap 141 R.E. 2002) and Rules 10, 11, (2) (d)

(i) and 4 (2) (b) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2009, seek for orders that:

"1. Extension of time order be granted in favour of the

Applicants so that they can apply for an order of stay of

execution of the Drawn Order and Decree of the High Court

pending Application of revision before the Court, and



1

2. Application for stay of execution of the Drawn Order and

Decree from judgment of the High Court dated 26 October,

2010 in Civil Case No. 124/2010, on the ground that the

revision has greater chances of success."


The said notice of motion is supported by an affidavit of Mr. Chidowu,

Principal State Attorney, who also represented the Applicants during the

hearing of the application.


Upon being served with the Notice of Motion, among others, the

Respondents who were represented during the hearing by Mr. Matunda

and Mr. Kamara, learned Counsel, raised seven preliminary objections as

follows:



"1. The Honourable Attorney General of the United Republic of

Tanzania does not have locus or legal authority to plead for,

act for and or represent the Government of The Great

Socialist Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the First Applicant herein.

2. The Application is legally incompetent for having been

initiated by Attorney General as amicus curie without leave

of the Court.

3. The Application is frivolous.

4. An application for extension of time to apply for stay of

execution is wrongly made.

2

5. The Applicants application is incompetent for being

supported by an Affidavit that is defective in as much the

jurat thereof does not show the place where the oath was

administered.

6. The non-verification of paragraph 7 of the Affidavit renders

the Application for stay of execution incompetent.

7. The Applicants' application for stay of (sic!) is made under

wrong provision of the law."


Procedurally we have to determine the preliminary objections first.


While we commend the counsel for their concerted efforts, in support

and against, in their respective research as exemplified by their

submissions, both written and oral, in terms of Rule 106 of the Court of

Appeal Rules, 2009, on our part, we are more than persuaded that dealing

with just one of the preliminary objections, No. 5 on the list, disposes of

the matter - that is, the one challenging the validity of the supporting

affidavit which has a defective jurat.


The Respondents' counsel, relying on s.8 of the Notaries Public and

Commissioners for Oaths Act [Cap 12, R.E 2002] and decisions of this

Court such as D.P.Shapriya & Co. Ltd Versus Bish International

Bv (2002) 1 E.A. 47 and Ghati Mathusela versus Matiko w/o


3

Marwa Mariba (CAT - Mwanza Registry, Civil Application No. 6 of

2006) urged us to strike out the application for incompetency due to

lack of a supporting affidavit as the one at hand is incurably defective

for failure to state in the jurat at what place it was sworn.


On his part, the learned Principal State Attorney, Mr. Chidowu,

though seemingly conceding to the omission, sought an escape route by

disowning the application. To appreciate this tactic, let part of his

written submissions tell it all. He states:


"On the as (sic) issue that the affidavit is defective this point

again should not stand; given the circumstances of the case,

whereby the Attorney -General simply notified the court on

the existence of the proceeding, finding and orders of the

trial court. The Attorney General was not a party and is

not a party in these proceedings the Attorney General is

just drafted as a friend of the court as he did in the case

ATTORNEY GENERAL V. BUTAMBARA (1996) (supra).

Let the Court invoke its revisional jurisdiction on this matter

and Attorney General to advise the Court."

[Emphasis added].




4

Further to the above, he orally submitted that the Notice of Motion

should be treated as being akin to a letter by the Attorney General applying

for leave to be joined as a friend of the Court.



Having considered the counsel's submissions and the law, on our

part, we have no spec of doubt that indeed the application before us is

incompetent.



Rule 48 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009, unreservedly provides

that any formal application to the Court, should be by way of a Notice of

Motion supported by an affidavit. Aware of this, the Applicants purported to

come to the Court by employing the mode. Unfortunately however, the

affidavit, sworn by the same Mr. Chidowu is silent about the place where

the same was taken. This is in violation of s.8 of Cap 12 R.E. 2002 which

provides:-

"Every notary public and commissioner for oaths

before whom any oath or affidavit is taken or made under

this Act shall state truly in the jurat of attestation at what

place and on what date the oath or affidavit is taken or

made" [Emphasis added].


As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Respondents,

this Court has, in various decisions including Bish and Matiko (supra);
5

The Registered Trustees of Joy In the Harvest v Hamza Sungura,

Civil Application No. 3 of 2003; Theobald Kainami v The General

Manager, K.C.U (1990) LTd-BK Civil Application No. 3 of 2002 and

Zuberi Mussa vs Shinyanga Town Council, (MWZ) Civil Application

No. 100 of 2004 to mention a few, held that an affidavit which does not

comply with the mandatory requirements of s.8 of Cap 12 (R.E. 2002) is

incurably defective. The Court in the Zuberi case insistingly exposed the

impregnable position of the principle thus:

"We are unhesitatingly of the view that the principle laid

down in these cases to the effect that the requirement in

this country that the place where and the date when an oath

or affidavit is taken or made must be shown in the jurat of

attestation is a statutory one which must be complied with

and not a dispensable technical requirement is now deeply

rooted in our jurisprudence. Every affidavit, therefore, which

does not conform with the statutory requirements of s.8 of

the Act shall be treated as incurably defective until such time

when the courts will be given a statutory leeway, ...... to

hold otherwise."




6

As the affidavit at hand is incurably defective, in terms of Rule 48,

there is no application worth the title before the Court. This disposes of the

matter.


However, before we conclude, we feel we should make three

observations.


To start with, there is nothing wrong, for the Hon. Attorney General

to seek leave to be joined as a friend of the Court in a befitting cause.

Such causes would include where public or government interests, however

remotely, are involved. Obviously this would include a situation where a

foreign government's interests are involved, and more specifically where

such interests touch or have a nexus with the government of Tanzania.

Seeking leave however should be in consonance with the usual procedure

which is not a new domain to the Hon. Attorney General.



The second observation is on inclusion of s.4 (2) of the Appellate

Jurisdiction Act [Cap 141 R.E. 2003] as one of the provisions of the law

under which the aborted application was brought. With respect to the

Principal State Attorney, even if the application had not suffered from the

already discussed malaise, the said section would have been expunged as

it is irrelevant. We appreciate that in the Notice of Motion it is indicated,

7

among others, that stay of execution is being sought "pending Application

of revision before the Court" but citation of revisionary provisions is

premature at this stage as this is not an application for revision, for, that

one, matters going as expected, is yet to come. That apart, even if it was

to be assumed that indeed it is an application for revision, s. 4(2) of Cap

141 cited is irrelevant. The relevant provision which an applicant, in the

obtaining situation, should cite is s. 4(3) as can clearly be gleaned from

the following provisions of Cap 141 (supra):-


"s. 4(2) For all purposes of and incidental to the hearing and

determination of any appeal in the exercise of the

jurisdiction conferred upon it by this Act, the Court of Appeal

shall, in addition to any other power, authority and

jurisdiction conferred by this Act, have the power of revision

and the power, authority and jurisdiction vested in the court

from which the appeal is brought.


(3) Without prejudice to subsection (2), the Court shall have the

power, authority and jurisdiction to call for and examine the

record of any proceedings before the High Court for the

purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or

propriety of any finding, order or any other decision made

thereon and as to the regularity of any proceedings of the

High Court."

8

The Court in Civil Application No. 1 of 2002, Benedict

Mabalanganya vs Romwald Sanga (unreported) clearly put the

applicability of the sections as follows:


"Before we come to that and for the avoidance of doubt, we

better say that section 4 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act,

1979, (hereinafter referred to simply as AJA, 1979) confers

upon this Court powers of revision. The Court can exercise

those powers in one of two ways: under section 4(2) the

Court can revise proceedings in the course of hearing an

appeal. Two, under section 4(3) the Court may on its own

motion call for and examine the record of any proceedings

before the High Court. Through case law (Halais Pro-

Chemie v. Wella A.G. [1996] T.L.R. 269] this Court has

extended sub-section (3) to cover instances where the Court

is moved to exercise its jurisdiction of revision."


Although the principle of law that citation of a wrong provision of the

law or non-citation thereof renders the application incompetent is well

settled in our law (NBC vs Sadrudin Meghji, Civil Application No. 20 of

1997; Interter East Africa vs B &S International, Civil Appeal No. 46

of 1997; China Henenan International Cooperation Group vs

Salvand K.A. Rwegasira, Civil Reference No. 22 of 2005; Citibank


9

Tanzania Ltd, Tanzania Telecommunication Company Ltd and four

others, Civil Application No. 65 of 2007) if the current application had not

been netted in another profound flaw, that principle would not have been

put into play because other relevant provisions were cited hence our

reference to just expunging that which is irrelevant.


And lastly is an observation on Mr. Chidowu's tactics during the

prosecution of the application.


With greatest respect to the Principal State Attorney, we found it very

novel in the legal domain. The current application (though found to be

defective) was purportedly initiated by the two Applicants by a Notice of

Motion. We are using the term "purported" because, although hurriedly

indeed one may take the duo to be the applicants, a scrutiny of the said

Notice of Motion and the defective affidavit, clearly show that it is the 2nd

Applicant, the Attorney General, who is solely in action.


Apart from the impleading title, there is nothing else which would

suggest that the 1st Applicant is indeed an applicant as such for there is no

representative thereof so indicated. And even more suprising, nowhere

does the 2nd Applicant claim to stand in that capacity. Without going into

the issue of whether the 1st Applicant is indeed an applicant in the eyes of

the law for even the defective affidavit does not allege to be a joint one, or

10

the question on how the Attorney General can join proceedings as a friend

of the Court, on the Court record's face value there is no way Mr.

Chidowu's oral submission: that the Attorney General is not an applicant

but just a friend of the Court, can stand. Why? First, there is no Court's

leave to so act. Two, the glaring Notice of Motion and affidavit cannot

under whatever extension of reasoning be equated to a letter by the said

Attorney General requesting to be made a friend of the Court. Thirdly, the

most serious of it all, once he tactically disowns the application which is

held to be incompetent, there would be no application for which he would

seek the Court's order to be joined and made a friend of the Court. It is a

very unfortunate tactic aimed at salvaging a still-born application.


That said, for reasons explained, we hold that the application before

us is incompetent and it is struck out accordingly.

DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 12th day of July, 2011.

E.M.K. RUTAKANGWA
JUSTICE OF APPEAL

L.B. KALEGEYA
JUSTICE OF APPEAL

S.A. MASSATI
JUSTICE OF APPEAL

I certify that this is a true copy of the original.


E.Y. MKWIZU

DEPUTY REGISTRAR
COURT OF APPEAL
11

Source: http://www.judiciary.go.tz:8081/hel...ication/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 147 OF 2010.HTM

 

[ISENUKA]

Membe ktk hili unawajibika tena 100%, usivunge ktk hilo wewe twambie hiyo MEMBE INTERPRISES lini itakamilika pia tupe na vielelezo japo attachment za hicho kiwanda yatosha.

 

[LEX STEELE]

Hatoki mtuuu humu

 

[JUNIOR KIKOLO]

Alichukua hizo pesa na aache kujishaua na kujihami. Amezisambaza dolla hadi kwenye daladala na muongo mkubwa huyo

 

[LEX STEELE]

........

 

[Lambardi]

Alitingishwa na JPM alipokuwa ziarani mikoa ya kusini.....naona akaamua kukaa kimya milele hatakuja kukohoa tenaa!!! Nilikuwa najiuliza hivi dola mil 20 zilitoshea kujenga kiwanda hadi mwisho? Nimesikia uwekezaji wa Dangote ni dolar mil 500 plus.....sasa 20mil Vs 500mil....hapo ndio sijaelewa!!! Natafakari tuu!!!

 

[Igdenny]

Katikati ya mistari ya maelezo yake mazuri kuna dalili zote za upigaji

 

[Bowie]

Kifo cha aliyekuwa Balozi wa Libya Tanzania ilikuwa ni Homicide ama Murder ?

 

[Bowie]

Balozi wa Libya hapa Nchini alitakiwa kuthibitisha hili mahakamani kama mkataba huo ni halali mbona haikufanyika hivyo? Ni ndio maana ya balozi wa nchi husika?

Kifo cha Balozi wa Libya kudaiwa kujiua inatia mashaka sana.

1.0. Libya ni moja kati ya nchi wafadhili wa Tanzania ambapo, kama ilivyo wafadhili wengineimekuwa ikiipa nchi yetu misaada na mikopo yenye masharti nafuu. Serikali yetu imekuwa ikifanya taratibu mbalimbali kulipa madeni ya nchi wafadhili kwa njia mbalimbali ikiwa ni pamoja na utaratibu wa kubadili madeni na kuyaingiza katika miradi n.k, yaani &[HASHTAG]#8216[/HASHTAG];Dept Swap'.

2.0. Katika utaratibu huo wa &[HASHTAG]#8216[/HASHTAG];Dept Swap', tarehe 20/7/2005, Serikali ya Tanzania na Libya zilitia sahihi mkataba wa Dept Swap (Dept Swap Agreement) ambao uliweka utaratibu wa matumizi na urejeshaji wa fedha za deni la Libya.

3.0. Tarehe 4/3/2009, Serikali ya Libya na Tanzania zilitia sahihi mkataba wa nyongeza (Addendum to the Dept Swap Agreement) ambao ulizungumzia, pamoja na mambo mengine, matumizi ya jumla ya dola za Kimarekani milioni 20 (20,000,000) ambazo zilikuwa zimehifadhiwa katika akaunti ya Libya No.004-200-0002216-01, Benki ya Rasilimali Tanzania (Tanzania Investment Bank).

4.0. Nyongeza hii ya mkataba ilitamka bayana katika kifungu No.4.02, kwamba, fedha zilizokuwa katika akaunti tajwa, zikopeshwe kwa mwekezaji waliyemteua wao wenyewe, ambaye ni kampuni ya MEIS INDUSTRIES LIMITED kwa ajili ya mradi wa ujenzi wa kiwanda cha Saruji Lindi. Kwa mujibu wa nyongeza hii, mkopo ulipaswa kulipwa ndani ya miaka sita, na baada ya hapo, fedha hizo zirejeshwe na ziendelee kukopeshwa Watanzania kwa ajili ya miradi mingine ambayo Serikali za Libya na Tanzania zitakuwa zimeridhia.

5.0. Kumbukumbu zinaonyesha mambo mawili:-

5.1 Kwamba, kabla ya Serikali ya Libya kutia sahihi nyongeza hii ya mkataba iliyotaka fedha zikopeshwe kwa MEIS INDUSTRIES, upembuzi yakinifu wa mradi husika ulifanywa na serikali ya Libya kupitia vyombo vyake, na wao wenyewe walishajiridhisha juu ya ubora wa mradi huo (Viability of the Project)

5.2 Kwamba, baada ya kutia sahihi nyongeza ya mkataba, Serikali ya Libya kupitia Ubalozi wake hapa nchini iliendelea kusisitiza kwa maandishi kwamba Serikali ya Tanzania iharakishe mchakato wa kuwezesha fedha hizo zikopeshwe kwa mwekezaji waliyemteua ili mradi huo muhimu usiendelee kuchelewa, na pia fedha ziingie katika mzunguko kwa manufaa ya Watanzania.

6.0. Katika kutekeleza mikataba hii miiwli, yaani Dept Swap Agreement ya tarehe 20/7/2005 na Addendum Dept Swap Agreement ya Tarehe 4/3/2009, na kwa kuzingatia umuhimu ambao serikali ya Libya iliuonyesha, Serikali ya Tanzania kupitia watalaamu wake wa Wizara ya Fedha, Benki ya Rasilimali (TIB) na Ofisi ya Mwanasheria Mkuu, na Mwekezaji (Kampuni ya MEIS), walikutana chini ya usimamizi wa Wizara ya Fedha na kuandaa hadidu za rejea ambazo zilipelekea kutengenezwa kwa mkataba wa uwekezaji (Investment Agreement) kati ya serikali ya Tanzania, TIB, Serikali ya Libya na Mwekezaji.

7.0. Serikali ya Tanzania, TIB na Mwekezaji walitia sahihi mkataba huu na kuupeleka Libya ili serikali ya Libya ipate kuweka sahihi. Kwa sababu ambazo hazikufahamika, serikali ya Libya haikutia sahihi mkataba huo.

8.0. Baada ya kufuatilia kwa muda mrefu bila mafanikio, mwekezaji alimuandikia barua Mwanasheria Mkuu wa Serikali ya Tanzania yenye kumbukumbu No. PC/MEIS/AG/2/10 ya tarehe 1/9/2010 akieleza kusudio la kuipeleka Serikali ya Libya Mahakamani kwa kitendo chake cha kutokutia sahihi mkataba.

9.0. Terehe 13/9/2010, Mwekezaji alifungua shauri Mahakama Kuu ya Tanzania, shauri la madai No. 124/2010 dhidi ya serikali ya Libya, akiiomba Mahakama Kuu itoe tamko kwamba kitendo cha serikali ya Libya kukataa kutia sahihi mkataba huu hakikuwa kitendo cha haki na kwamba mahakama itoe amri kwamba fedha hizo zitolewe kwa Mwekezaji ili kutekeleza mradi uliokusudiwa.

Kumbukumbu zinaonyesha kwamba wito wa Mahakama (Summons) ulipelekwa Ubalozi wa Libya lakini hapakuwa na majibu wala mwakilishi aliyekuja mahakamani.

10.0. Mahakama Kuu, kwa kufuata taratibu zake, iliendelea na kusikiliza shauri na kutoa amri kama ambavyo mahakama yenyewe ilijiridhisha. Amri ya mahakama, pamoja na mambo mengine, iliagiza kwamba fedha hizo zitolewe kwa mwekezaji ili kutekeleza mradi husika.

11.0. Zilifanyika juhudi za Benki ya Rasilimali (TIB) pamoja na Ofisi ya Mwanasheria Mkuu wa Serikali kupinga au kupata ufafanuzi zaidi juu ya amri hiyo ya utekelezaji wake. Mahakama Kuu pamoja na Mahakama ya Rufana, katika nyakati tofauti, zilishughulikia maombi hayo na kuyafikisha katika hatima yake kwa mujibu wa sheria. Kwa ajili ya kumbukumbu, mashauri yaliyofunguliwa ni kama ifuatavyo:-

11.1 TIB ilifungua maombi No. 126/2010 katika mahakama ya Rufaa kuiomba izuie na kufuta utekelezaji wa amri ya Mahakama Kuu. Maombi haya ya TIB yalifanyiwa uamuzi wa mwisho mnamo tarehe 7/11/2011, ambapo maombi hayo yaliondolewa mahakamani kwa kuwa, kwa mujibu wa Mahakama ya Rufaa, hayakuwa yamefuata taratibu za kisheria.

11.2 Mwanasheria Mkuu wa Serikali naye akapeleka maombi Mahakama ya Rufaa. Maombi ya kwanza, maombi namba .146/2010 akiomba Mahakama ya Rufaa kufuta mwenendo mzima wa kesi pamoja na amri ya Mahakama Kuu, na maombi ya pili No. 147/2010 ikiiomba Mahakama ya Rufaa izuie utekelezaji wa amri ya mahakama Kuu (Stay of Execution). Maombi haya yote yalisikilizwa na kuamuliwa kwa mujibu wa sheria na taratibu za kimahakama.

12.0 Wakati haya yakiendelea, ilijitokeza kampuni ya Mohamed Enterprises Limited ikidai kwamba ina haki juu ya fedha hizi. Nayo ikafanya yafuatayo:-

12.1 Ilipelea maombi Mahakama Kuu kuzuia utekelezaji wa hukumu kwa madai kuwa kampuni hiyo nayo ilikuwa ikiishtaki Serikali ya Libya katika kesi ya madai No. 110/2010 na kwa hiyo, endapo amri ya Mahakama Kuu ingetekelezwa kwa kumpa mwekezaji (Kampuni ya MEIS) fedha za Libya, basi wao (Mohamed Enterprises Limited) wangekosa mahali pa kutekeleza/kukazia hukumu waliyokuwa wakiitarajia katika kesi yao (no. 110/2010) dhidi ya serikali ya Libya. Maombi haya yalisikilizwa na Mahakama Kuu na kutolewa maamuzi stahiki.

12.2. Kampuni ya Mohamed Enterprises Limited haikuridhika na uamuzi wa Mahakama Kuu kwa hiyo kapeleka shauri hili Mahakama ya Rufaa, kupitia maombi (Civil Revision) No. 2/2011. Maombi haya nayo pia yalisikilizwa na kutolewa maamuzi.

13 Mwisho wa yote maamuzi ya Mahakama Kuu na Mahakama ya Rufaa katika mchakato mzima yakawa kwamba mwekezaji (Kampuni ya MEIS) alikuwa na haki ya kupewa fedha za mradi wa Kiwanda cha Saruji Lindi kama ilivyoanishwa katika mkataba kati ya serikali ya Tanzania na Libya. Ni dhahiri kwamba, mgogoro huu ulichujwa na mahakama mpaka ngazi ya juu kabisa, tena kwa nyakati tofauti na mbele ya waheshimiwa majaji wa Mahakama Kuu na Mahakama ya Rufaa.

14.0 Katika Taifa linaloongozwa kikatiba, chini ya utawala wa sheria kama Tanzania, ambapo Mahakama ndicho chombo kilichopewa mamlaka ya mwisho kuamua juu ya haki za raia na hata serikali, si rahisi na wala haitakuwa sahihi kwa mtu yeyote kuhoji uhalali wa mchakato huu kama ulivyoongozwa, kuelekezwa na kuamuliwa na mahakama, isipokuwa tu kama sheria inatoa mwanya mwingine kurudi mahakamani kwa mtu yeyote ambaye hajaridhika au anayetaka kuhoji maamuzi haya kwa namna yoyote.

15. Mahakama iliamua kwa mujibu wa sheria. Na kwa kuwa hakuna aliyeendelea kupinga kimahakama, suala hili lichukuliwe kwamba limefikia mwisho na limefungwa. Lakini hata kiuongozi, na hasa kwa mtu yeyote mwenye kutazama maslahi ya Taifa hili, ni dhahiri kwamba suala la utekelezaji wa mikataba ya kubadilishana madeni ni jambo lenye manufaa kwa Tanzania na linapaswa kila fursa inapojitokeza kutekelezwa haraka.

Wenzetu, nchi wafadhili, wanapotoa fursa za kutupunguzia mzigo wa madeni katika utaratibu wenye manufaa kama huu, tutaendelea kuonekana wa ajabu kama tutaendelea kulumbana badala ya kuchangamkia fursa ya maendeleo. Tukwepe mazingira yanayopelekea taifa letu kuonekana kama wale watoto watukutu waliokabidhiwa zawadi ya nyumba, badala ya kuishi kwa shukrani ya nyumba ile, wakagombana na kunyang'anyana fito na kuzitumia kupigana bila kujali kwamba nyumba inaanguka maana fito ndizo zilizo ishikilia.

16.0 Mimi kama Mbunge kutokea Mkoa wa Lindi, na kama Waziri mwenye dhamana ya Mambo ya Nje na Ushirikiano wa Kimataifa, nalifuatilia kwa karibu suala hili kwa sababu mbili:-

(i) Kwanza, kuanzishwa kwa mradi huu kutawanufaisha wapiga kura wangu, na Watanzania kwa ujumla kwa kuinua uchumi wetu na kuongeza ajira hasa wa Mikoa ya Kusini ambayo imeachwa nyuma kwa muda mrefu. Utafiti unaonyesha kuwa Mikoa ya Lindi na Mtwara ina utajiri mkubwa wa mali ghafi ya Saruji, na kwa hiyo upo uhakika wa kupata saruji bora na kwa bei nafuu sana.

(ii) Pili, suala hili linagusa mahusiano ya Nchi mbili kwa hiyo lazima Wizara yangu ilisimamie kwa nguvu, umahiri na umakini wote.

17.0 Kama nilivyosema huko nyuma, fedha zote zilizotolewa kwa amri ya Mahakama ni Mkopo. Hazikuchukuliwa kama fedha za EPA au ESCROW. Ni mkopo uliotolewa kwa Kampuni ya MEIS kwa mujibu wa Mkataba wa Makubaliano (Investment Agreement) yenye Masharti Kibenki. Na Masharti hayo ya Kibenki yanamtaka Mwekezaji kuweka dhamana, kulipia riba, kuwekewa muda wa kurudisha mkopo, na anawekewa hatua za kuchukuliwa endapo Mwekezaji huyo atashindwa kulipa mkopo. Kwa lugha nyingine, Kampuni ya MEIS ikishindwa kulipa mkopo huo, itafilisiwa mali zake na TIB itarudishiwa fedha zake. Iacheni benki ifanye kazi yake. Mkopo unageukaje kuwa ufisadi?

18.0 Mimi sina Kampuni hapa nchini. Sina ubia na kampuni yoyote ikiwemo Kampuni ya MEIS. Sina hisa katika Kampuni ya MEIS. Na sijafaidika na mkopo huo ambao unasimamiwa na Benki ya Uwekezaji nchini (TIB). Ndiyo maana uvumi kuwa nahusika na ufisadi wa mabilioni ya Libya hauna mashiko kabisa. Baadhi ya wanasiasa wenzangu wanajua ukweli wote huu lakini kwa makusudi wanaamua kuwafanya watu waamini wapinzani!

19.0 Ujenzi wa kiwanda cha simenti cha Lindi unaendelea vizuri na mitambo yote inayotakiwa katika ujenzi huo imekwisha wasili. Asilimia 45 ya ujenzi wa kiwanda hicho umekamilika na ni mategemeo ya kampuni ya MEIS kuwa kiwanda hicho kitakamilika ifikapo mwezi Disemba mwaka huu wa 2015.

20.0 Ni matumaini yangu kuwa nimeeleweka vya kutosha. Kama kuna mtu anahitaji taarifa zaidi basi awe huru kuihoji kampuni ya MEIS na Benki ya TIB ambayo imetoa mkopo huo, au kumpata Msajili wa Mahakama Kuu na Mahakama ya Rufaa ambazo zote ziliamua Kampuni ya MEIS ipewe mkopo huo kwa mujibu wa sheria za kibenki.

Bernard K. Membe (Mb)
WAZIRI WA MAMBO YA NJE NA
USHIRIKIANO WA KIMATAIFA

 

[magesa sam]

Alitingishwa na JPM alipokuwa ziarani mikoa ya kusini.....naona akaamua kukaa kimya milele hatakuja kukohoa tenaa!!! Nilikuwa najiuliza hivi dola mil 20 zilitoshea kujenga kiwanda hadi mwisho? Nimesikia uwekezaji wa Dangote ni dolar mil 500 plus.....sasa 20mil Vs 500mil....hapo ndio sijaelewa!!! Natafakari tuu!!!

[emoji13] [emoji13] kiwanda chenyewe walishia kuchimba mitaro tu mpaka Leo hakuna cha kiwanda wala ramani ya kiwanda miti ilishaotea kote limekuwa pori tayari

 

[gudagu]

Viongozi wote wakubwa aslimia kubwa hakuna msafi

 

[Lambardi]

Watu ni wabaya sana!!! Sasa mkwara wote u kusema 45% kiko tayari daaa hivi hajui ipo siku watarudi kudai pesa zao??? Nafikiria ip siku atapandishwa kizimbani kwa wizi , kuaminiwa kabisaa.....Libya nchi bado ipoo.....ipo siku

[emoji13] [emoji13] kiwanda chenyewe walishia kuchimba mitaro tu mpaka Leo hakuna cha kiwanda wala ramani ya kiwanda miti ilishaotea kote limekuwa pori tayari

 

[WILLIAM MARCONI]

Mkataba huanza BAADA ya kusainiwa na pande mbili. Iweje hapa sahihi ya Libya haikuwekwa, badala yake Membe kaenda kulazimisha Mahakamani? Kama Membe hana interest MEIS mbona hatupewi majina ya wahusika?

 

[moma2k]

Sasa ni mwaka 2017.Je kiwanda hicho kiko wapi?Je TIB wamechukua hatua gani?