RAYAN THE DON
JF-Expert Member
- Aug 21, 2019
- 679
- 1,194
Habari wanabodi? Heri ya siku ya wapendana nao.
Ni matumaini yangu kwamba wote hamjambo humu ndani. Kama kichwa cha habari kinavyojieleza hapo juu. Ni kwamba mwishoni mwanzoni mwa mwezi wa tatu natarajia kupeleka Shauri mahakama kuu ya Tanzania kuhusu uhalali wa Ibara ya 46(3) ya Katiba ya Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania kwa sababu inaenda kinyume na Ibara ya 13(1) ya katiba.
Ibara ya 13(1) ya katiba inasema "Watu wote ni sawa mbele ya sheria, na wanayo haki, bila ya ubaguzi wowote, kulindwa na kupata haki sawa mbele ya sheria"
"All persons are equal before the law and are entitled, without any discrimination, to protection and equality before the law"
Wakati ibara ya 46(3) ya katiba yetu inasema "Isipokuwa kama ataacha kushika madaraka ya Rais kutokana na masharti ya ibara ya 46A(10), itakuwa ni marufuku kumshtaki au kufungua mahakamani shauri lolote la jinai au la kumdai mtu aliyekuwa anashika madaraka ya Rais baada ya kuacha madaraka hayo kutokana na jambo lolote alilofanya yeye kama Rais wakati alipokuwa bado anashika madaraka ya Rais kwa mujibu wa Katiba hii"
Article 46(3) Except where he ceases to hold the office of President pursuant to the provisions of Article 46A(10) it shall be prohibited to institute in court criminal or civil proceedings whatsoever against a person who was holding the office of President after he ceases to hold such office for anything he did in his capacity as President while he held the office of President in accordance with this Constitution.
Kwa mujibu wa ibara ya 13(1) ya katiba, ibara ya 46(3) ya katiba inaruhusu ubaguzi(discrimination based on status) kutokana na hali ya mtu(status). Ukisoma katika ibara hiyo ya 13(5) inasema kwamba "kwa madhumuni ya ufafanuzi wa masharti ya ibara hii neno "kubagua" maana yake ni kutimiza haja, haki au mahitaji mengineyo kwa watu mbalimbali kwa kuzingatia utaifa wao, kabila, pahala walipotokea, maoni yao ya kisiasa, rangi, dini, jinsia au hali yao ya maisha kwa namna ambayo watu wa aina fulani wanafanywa au kuhesabiwa kuwa dhaifu au duni na kuwekewa vikwazo au masharti ya vipingamizi ambapo watu wa aina nyingine wanatendewa tofauti au wanapewa fursa au faida iliyoko nje ya masharti au sifa za lazima, isipokuwa kwamba neno "kubagua" halitafafanuliwa kwa namna ambayo itaizuia Serikali kuchukua hatua za makusudi zenye lengo la kurekebisha matatizo katika jamii"
kutokana na maneno hayo hapo juu ni wazi kwamba Rais anatendewa tofauti (our president is treated differently) na watu wengine wakati sisi sote ni binadamu na kwa mujibu wa Ibara ya 13(1) tupo sawa mbele ya sheria.
Kwanini mtu aliyeiba kuku mwenye thamani ya TZS 15000/=ashitakiwe ila linapokuja kwa mkuu wa nchi aliyevunja/anayevunja katiba kwa kufanya makosa mbalimbali ya jina kama ubadhirifu wa mali wasishitakiwe?
Kinga ya kutokushitakiwa kwa Rais kwa makosa ya jinai baada kumaliza muda wake wa kuongoza ni hatari sana katika ukuaji wa Taifa letu. Katika nchi zingine zilizoendelea mfano SA, n,k Rais hana kinga dhidi ya mashitaka ya jinai pale anapofanya kosa la uhujumu uchumi, Rushwa uhaini(Uhaini ni pamoja na kushindwa kuheshimu katiba ambayo ni sheria mama(Supreme law). Mfano mzuri ni Rais mstaafu wa SA Jacob Zuma ambaye mwaka jana aliburuzwa mahakamani kwa kosa la uhujumu uchumi.
Kwanini leo hili suala lisiwezekane nchini Tanzania?
Leo hii Katiba ya Jamhuri ya Tanzania siyo katiba inayoheshimiwa kwa sababu viongozi wote wapo juu ya sheria. Hawaogopi wala kujali misingi iliyowekwa katika katiba yetu. Ndiyo maana Serikali kuu inafanya shughuli au miradi ambayo Bunge la Jamhuri ya Muungano halijapitisha kufanyika, Watoto wa kike waliopata mimba wanabaguliwa wasiendelee na elimu yao, kutosikiliza shida na matakwa ya wananchi, kupotea kwa fedha za umma pilia maelezo yoyote ya kina mfano 1.5T mpaka leo hii haijawahi tolewa maelezo yoyote.
Katika shauri langu nitaomba mahakama kutamka kwamba Ibara ya 46(3) ya katiba ni batili kwa sababu inakiuka misingi ya ibara ya 13 ya Katiba ya Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania.
katika kuishawishi mahakama nitapenda kutumia kesi zilizoamriwa katika nchi zingine ili kuonesha namna watu wanavyopambana kulinda katiba yao na mahaka zipo kwa ajili ya kuhakikisha katiba ipo salama mfano Similarly, the Constitutional Court of Uganda in the case of OLUM AND ANOTHER vs ATTORNEY GENERAL appreciated the principle set out by the Canadian Court in the Big Mart Case and pointed out thus:“To determine the constitutionality of a section of a statute or Act of Parliament, the court has to consider the purpose and effect of the impugned statute or section thereof. If its purpose does not infringe a right guaranteed by the constitution, the court has to go further and examine the effect of the implementation. If either its purpose or the effect of its implementation infringes a right guaranteed by the constitution, the impugned statute or section thereof shall be declared unconstitutional
The Canadian Court in the case of R v Big M Drug Mart the Court outlined the guidance to be followed in determining the constitutionality or otherwise of statutory provisions, it noted thus;
“Both purpose and effect are relevant in determining constitutionality, either an unconstitutional purpose or an unconstitutional effect can invalidate legislation. All legislation is animated by an object the legislature intends to achieve. This object is realized through impact produced by the operation and application of the legislation. Purpose and effect respectively, in the sense of legislation, object and its ultimate impact are clearly linked, if not indivisible. Intended and achieved effects have been looked to for guidance in assessing the legislation’s object and thus the validity.
There is a rebuttable presumption of legality of Statutes/Acts of Parliament. This position was affirmed by the Court of India in the case of Hamdarada Nakhana Union of India Air (1960) 354, that;
“In examining the constitutionality of a statute, it must be assumed that the legislature understands and appreciates the needs of the people and the laws it enacts are directed to problems which are made manifest by experience and, the elected representatives in a legislature and it enacts laws which they consider to be reasonable for purposes for which they were enacted, presumption is therefore in favour of the constitutionality. In order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality, the court may take into account matters of common knowledge, the history of the times and may assume every state or facts as existing at the time of legislation.
Ahsanteni na karibuni kwa michango yenu wakuu.
Ni matumaini yangu kwamba wote hamjambo humu ndani. Kama kichwa cha habari kinavyojieleza hapo juu. Ni kwamba mwishoni mwanzoni mwa mwezi wa tatu natarajia kupeleka Shauri mahakama kuu ya Tanzania kuhusu uhalali wa Ibara ya 46(3) ya Katiba ya Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania kwa sababu inaenda kinyume na Ibara ya 13(1) ya katiba.
Ibara ya 13(1) ya katiba inasema "Watu wote ni sawa mbele ya sheria, na wanayo haki, bila ya ubaguzi wowote, kulindwa na kupata haki sawa mbele ya sheria"
"All persons are equal before the law and are entitled, without any discrimination, to protection and equality before the law"
Wakati ibara ya 46(3) ya katiba yetu inasema "Isipokuwa kama ataacha kushika madaraka ya Rais kutokana na masharti ya ibara ya 46A(10), itakuwa ni marufuku kumshtaki au kufungua mahakamani shauri lolote la jinai au la kumdai mtu aliyekuwa anashika madaraka ya Rais baada ya kuacha madaraka hayo kutokana na jambo lolote alilofanya yeye kama Rais wakati alipokuwa bado anashika madaraka ya Rais kwa mujibu wa Katiba hii"
Article 46(3) Except where he ceases to hold the office of President pursuant to the provisions of Article 46A(10) it shall be prohibited to institute in court criminal or civil proceedings whatsoever against a person who was holding the office of President after he ceases to hold such office for anything he did in his capacity as President while he held the office of President in accordance with this Constitution.
Kwa mujibu wa ibara ya 13(1) ya katiba, ibara ya 46(3) ya katiba inaruhusu ubaguzi(discrimination based on status) kutokana na hali ya mtu(status). Ukisoma katika ibara hiyo ya 13(5) inasema kwamba "kwa madhumuni ya ufafanuzi wa masharti ya ibara hii neno "kubagua" maana yake ni kutimiza haja, haki au mahitaji mengineyo kwa watu mbalimbali kwa kuzingatia utaifa wao, kabila, pahala walipotokea, maoni yao ya kisiasa, rangi, dini, jinsia au hali yao ya maisha kwa namna ambayo watu wa aina fulani wanafanywa au kuhesabiwa kuwa dhaifu au duni na kuwekewa vikwazo au masharti ya vipingamizi ambapo watu wa aina nyingine wanatendewa tofauti au wanapewa fursa au faida iliyoko nje ya masharti au sifa za lazima, isipokuwa kwamba neno "kubagua" halitafafanuliwa kwa namna ambayo itaizuia Serikali kuchukua hatua za makusudi zenye lengo la kurekebisha matatizo katika jamii"
kutokana na maneno hayo hapo juu ni wazi kwamba Rais anatendewa tofauti (our president is treated differently) na watu wengine wakati sisi sote ni binadamu na kwa mujibu wa Ibara ya 13(1) tupo sawa mbele ya sheria.
Kwanini mtu aliyeiba kuku mwenye thamani ya TZS 15000/=ashitakiwe ila linapokuja kwa mkuu wa nchi aliyevunja/anayevunja katiba kwa kufanya makosa mbalimbali ya jina kama ubadhirifu wa mali wasishitakiwe?
Kinga ya kutokushitakiwa kwa Rais kwa makosa ya jinai baada kumaliza muda wake wa kuongoza ni hatari sana katika ukuaji wa Taifa letu. Katika nchi zingine zilizoendelea mfano SA, n,k Rais hana kinga dhidi ya mashitaka ya jinai pale anapofanya kosa la uhujumu uchumi, Rushwa uhaini(Uhaini ni pamoja na kushindwa kuheshimu katiba ambayo ni sheria mama(Supreme law). Mfano mzuri ni Rais mstaafu wa SA Jacob Zuma ambaye mwaka jana aliburuzwa mahakamani kwa kosa la uhujumu uchumi.
Kwanini leo hili suala lisiwezekane nchini Tanzania?
Leo hii Katiba ya Jamhuri ya Tanzania siyo katiba inayoheshimiwa kwa sababu viongozi wote wapo juu ya sheria. Hawaogopi wala kujali misingi iliyowekwa katika katiba yetu. Ndiyo maana Serikali kuu inafanya shughuli au miradi ambayo Bunge la Jamhuri ya Muungano halijapitisha kufanyika, Watoto wa kike waliopata mimba wanabaguliwa wasiendelee na elimu yao, kutosikiliza shida na matakwa ya wananchi, kupotea kwa fedha za umma pilia maelezo yoyote ya kina mfano 1.5T mpaka leo hii haijawahi tolewa maelezo yoyote.
Katika shauri langu nitaomba mahakama kutamka kwamba Ibara ya 46(3) ya katiba ni batili kwa sababu inakiuka misingi ya ibara ya 13 ya Katiba ya Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania.
katika kuishawishi mahakama nitapenda kutumia kesi zilizoamriwa katika nchi zingine ili kuonesha namna watu wanavyopambana kulinda katiba yao na mahaka zipo kwa ajili ya kuhakikisha katiba ipo salama mfano Similarly, the Constitutional Court of Uganda in the case of OLUM AND ANOTHER vs ATTORNEY GENERAL appreciated the principle set out by the Canadian Court in the Big Mart Case and pointed out thus:“To determine the constitutionality of a section of a statute or Act of Parliament, the court has to consider the purpose and effect of the impugned statute or section thereof. If its purpose does not infringe a right guaranteed by the constitution, the court has to go further and examine the effect of the implementation. If either its purpose or the effect of its implementation infringes a right guaranteed by the constitution, the impugned statute or section thereof shall be declared unconstitutional
The Canadian Court in the case of R v Big M Drug Mart the Court outlined the guidance to be followed in determining the constitutionality or otherwise of statutory provisions, it noted thus;
“Both purpose and effect are relevant in determining constitutionality, either an unconstitutional purpose or an unconstitutional effect can invalidate legislation. All legislation is animated by an object the legislature intends to achieve. This object is realized through impact produced by the operation and application of the legislation. Purpose and effect respectively, in the sense of legislation, object and its ultimate impact are clearly linked, if not indivisible. Intended and achieved effects have been looked to for guidance in assessing the legislation’s object and thus the validity.
There is a rebuttable presumption of legality of Statutes/Acts of Parliament. This position was affirmed by the Court of India in the case of Hamdarada Nakhana Union of India Air (1960) 354, that;
“In examining the constitutionality of a statute, it must be assumed that the legislature understands and appreciates the needs of the people and the laws it enacts are directed to problems which are made manifest by experience and, the elected representatives in a legislature and it enacts laws which they consider to be reasonable for purposes for which they were enacted, presumption is therefore in favour of the constitutionality. In order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality, the court may take into account matters of common knowledge, the history of the times and may assume every state or facts as existing at the time of legislation.
Ahsanteni na karibuni kwa michango yenu wakuu.
