PCCB: Tuna manufaa nayo?
PCCB: Tuna manufaa nayo?
- Thread starter BAK
- Start date
Obe
Platinum Member
- Dec 31, 2007
- 10,278
- 35,639
Umeandika vizuri sana mdau. Nachoweza kuchangia hapa ni kukumbusha tu kile kilichotokea wakati wa ripoti iliyosababisha kujiuzuru kwa EL, maneno ya mwenyekiti wa kamati ile kuhusu hawa WAOMBA RUSHWA ni ushahidi tosha kuwa taasisi hii si kwa ajili ya kufanya kile kilichoandikwa vitabuni BALI ni kwa ajili ya kuwasafisha MAFISADI kwa kukanusha UKWELI wa matendo machafu yanayofanywa na MAJASIRIAMALI HALISI
BORA KUFA KWA KUTETEA HAKI, KULIKO KUISHI UKIWA MTUMWA
BORA KUFA KWA KUTETEA HAKI, KULIKO KUISHI UKIWA MTUMWA
Bubu Msemaovyo
JF-Expert Member
- May 9, 2007
- 4,189
- 3,548
Asante sana Mkuu SteveD hata hivyo nimshukuru Mod ametekeleza ombi hilo haraka iwezekanavyo. Niliandika nikiwa na JAZBA SANA. kwa hiyo hata ubora wa article haukuzingatiwa, si unajua mimi ni msema ovyo???
Tuandamane
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 2, 2008
- 1,221
- 57
HAKUNA ubishi kuwa ufisadi ni neno lililochukua nafasi kubwa zaidi magazetini katika awamu hii ya uongozi wa nchi kuliko huko nyuma.
Hata Waziri Mkuu, Mizengo Pinda, anayetetea uamuzi wa serikali wa kushindwa kufikisha watuhumiwa ufisadi mahakamani, anafahamu hili.
Katika kipindi cha miezi 28 ya uongozi kwa Rais Jakaya Kikwete, ufisadi limetamkwa na kuandikwa mara nyingi zaidi.
Wakati hiyo ndiyo hali halisi, inaonekana Taasisi ya Kuzuia na Kupambana na Rushwa (TAKUKURU) yenye dhamana ya kuchunguza na kuchukua hatua kukomesha ufisadi, inafanya dhihaka kubwa.
Inachofanya TAKUKURU ni kupiga kelele zaidi na kujipipendekeza. Na hilo hawawezi kulipinga kwa sababu hawawezi kuonyesha vinginevyo kwa wananchi.
Viongozi wa TAKUKURU hawawezi kujitapa kuwa wanafanya kazi waliotumwa bila kutaja idadi ya kesi za vigogo ambazo wamezisimamia na wahusika kufikishwa mahakamani, achilia mbali kutiwa hatiani na mahakama.
Mfano mzuri ni uchunguzi wa sakata la rada. Hapa ndipo TAKUKURU inapoonekana kioja.
Katika sakata hili, wajanja wachache serikalini wameshirikiana na mfanyabiashara wa kiasia, na kufanikiwa kuingiza mkenge serikali kwa kuizia mtambo huo wa kuongozea ndege kwa bei kubwa ya dola za Marekani 36 milioni, sawa na zaidi ya Sh. 40 bilioni za Tanzania.
Pamoja na taasisi nyigi za ndani na nje ya nchi, zikiungwa mkono na Benki ya Dunia (WB), walipinga mradi huo kwa hoja kwamba unaliangamiza taifa; bado TAKUKURU ilikuwa imelala usingizi mnono.
Pamoja na kwamba kulikuwa na kila dalili za wakubwa kutafuna mlungula katika sakata zima la mkataba, bado TAKUKURU haikuwa na meno ya kusaka wahusika.
Si hivyo tu, TAKUKURU hawakuweza kusikiliza vilio wala manunguniko ya wananchi.
Kukurupuka kwa taasisi hii, kumekuja pale shirika la Uchunguzi wa Makosa ya Jinai nchini Uingereza (Serious Fraud Office -SFO), lilipoanza kulichunguza suala hilo.
Katika uchunguzi huo, SFO walilazimika wahusika kuja hapa ambako rada ndiko ilikouzwa; mamlaka ya nchi hii haikuweza kuwakatalia kuingia nchini kwa hofu ya kukatiwa misaada kutoka Uingereza.
Lakini haiyumkiniki iwapo TAKUKURU walitoa ushirikiano wa kutosha. Hii ni kwa sababu kama inavyodhirika sasa, wapo baadhi ya wakubwa katika serikali wametajwa kupokea milungula kwa lengo la kufanikisha dili hiyo.
Bila shaka maafisa wa SFO walishangaa sana kuwakuta wenzao wa Tanzania (TAKUKURU) hawana hata jalada la kuonyesha kile nao walichokuwa wanatarajiwa wakifanye upelelezi wa dili hiyo. Hakika, ni aibu tupu.
Hii inaeleweka, kwani serikali nzima ilikuwa haina ari ya kuchunguza sakata hili. Hata Rais Jakaya Kikwete, alipokuwa ziarani Uingereza mwaka 2006 aliwahi kutamka kwa Watanzania waishio huko kwamba sakata la rada ni lao Waingereza, si la Tanzania.
Alisema kama wakosaji ni kampuni ya BAE, ambayo iliiuzia rada hiyo Tanzania. Tayari imedhirika kwamba rais Kikwete hakuwa sahihi, kwani walioingizwa mjini ni sisi watanzania.
Wapo wanaosema, Kikwete alilazimika kutoa kauli hiyo, ili kulinda marafiki zake ndani ya serikali ambao muda si mrefu wataanza kumbuliwa.
Kuanzia wakati huo ndipo TAKUKURU ikaanza kuonekana nayo ni mshiriki mkuu wa SFO katika uchunguzi huo. Lakini hakuna ubishi kwamba sifa za matokeo ya upelelezi huo zinatokana na jitihada kubwa za Waingereza.
Hii ni aibu kubwa. Maana Waingereza ndiyo wanaonekana wanauchungu sana na mustakabli wa nchi hii kuliko hata viongozi wetu. Matokeo ya hali hiyo, tayari tumeanza kuyaona. TAKUKURU na serikali zimeanza kuvuliwa nguo.
Tayari Waziri wa Miundombinu, Andrew Chenge, amehojiwa na kupekuliwa. Kuna taarifa kwamba amekutwa na dola zaidi ya milioni tano (Sh. 6.5 bilioni) kwenye akaunti zake mbalimbali nje ya nchi.
Kufuatana na taarifa za SFO, fedha hizo zinashukiwa kuwa ni mlungula wa dili ya rada.
Wanangangania hivyo kutokana na jinsi mlolongo wa uhamishaji wake ulivyokuwa baina ya Uingereza, Uswisi na kisiwa cha Jersey. Chenge mwenyewe amekanusha kuwa fedha hizo zinahusiana na dili ya rada.
Taarifa za SFO zinasema bado anatafutwa mtuhumiwa mkuu katika dili hiyo, Saileshi Vithlani. Huyu ni Mtanzania anayedaiwa ana uraia pia wa Uingereza.
Taarifa zinasema, Vithlani ndiye aliyepewa dola za Kimarekani zaidi ya 12 milioni kutoka kwa kampuni ya BAE. Fedha hizo ziliingizwa katika akaunti yake ya Uswisi kama kamisheni kwa kufanikisha dili.
Kiasi hicho cha fedha kwa mujibu wa sheria za Uingereza hakiwezi kuwa kamisheni. Ni wazi kwamba hizo ni fedha za mlungula.
Kwa sheria za Uingereza, kamisheni halali ya dili kama hiyo, ni asilimia tatu. Kwa hali hiyo, Vithlani alitakiwa kulipwa karibu dola 400,000 milioni (zaidi ya Sh. 600,000) ambazo tayari alikuwa amekabidhiwa.
Kwa hivyo, SFO (inasemekana pamoja na Tanzania) inamtafuta Vithlani, na Taasisi ya Polisi Duniani (Interpol) imearifiwa kumkamata ili aeleze ni akina nani hasa aliwagawia dola hizo 12 milioni.
Tanzania, kwa maana ya TAKUKURU, haiwezi kuwa inamtafuta Vithlani kwa dhati, hilo nalikataa kabisa. Ni kwa sababu Vithlani ni mtu anayeweza kuja kuiumbua serikali. Hapa ndipo anapoweza kutaja vigogo aliokula nao pamoja mabilioni hayo ya fedha.
Isitoshe Vithlani aliwahi kutiwa mbaroni na TAKUKURU mwaka jana ambapo walimfikisha mahakamani kwa kusema uongo kwa wapelelezi na baadaye akatoweka nchini katika mazingira ya kutatanisha.
Yumkini wapelelezi wa SFO waliwashangaa sana wenzao wa TAKUKURU kwa kumwachia shahidi mkubwa kabisa katika kesi hiyo.
Haifahamiki ni kiasi gani viongozi wa TAKUKURU walilipwa na Vithlani ili kufakisha dili la kumwachia huru. Lakini bila shaka walilipwa.
Kutoroka kwake bila shaka kulipangwa, kwa sababu serikali haitaki kuwapo kwake nchini. Ni kama vile aliyekuwa Gavana wa Benki Kuu (BoT), Daudi Ballali, asivyotakiwa na wakubwa nchini.
Balali huku serikali ikujua kwamba ni mtuhumiwa muhimu katika sakata la wizi wa mabilioni ya shilingi katika akaunti ya EPA, serikali haijihangaishi kumtafuta.
Bila shaka baadhi ya wakubwa ndani ya serikali wanaogopa kutajwa juu ya jinsi walivyohusika na kadhia hiyo.
Ni wazi kwamba serikali haitaki kabisa kuwapo kwa Balali nchini. Na hata kauli ya TAKUKURU kwamba inapeleleza suala hilo, bado ukweli utabaki palepale kwamba hahitaji nchini kwa hofu ya kuumbua wakubwa.
Ndiyo maana Kamati maalum inayoongozwa na Mwanasheria Mkuu wa serikali, Johnson Mwanyika haisemi chochote iwapo inafanya jitihada zozote za kumtafuta, na kama wanafanya, jitihada hizo zimefikia wapi.
Kwa hivyo basi, iwapo Ballali atapatikana, basi hata huyu Vithlani atapatikana. Lakini kamwe haiingii maanani iwapo hayo yatatokea.
Lakini hili halishangazi sana kwa taasisi kama TAKUKURU ambayo kama nilivyotaja hapo awali, haina utamaduni wa kufanikisha uchunguzi wowote wa ufisadi unaohusu wakubwa. Siku zote, TAKUKURU inataka ionekane tu inafanya kazi, ijapokuwa moyoni hakuna kitu.
Tumeona uchunguzi wa Richmond na namna walivyojaribu kumsafisha aliyekuwa Waziri Mkuu, Edward Lowassa. Tumeona hili la EPA na sasa tunashuhudia uchunguzi huu wa rada.
Hakika, ukiacha hili la rada, mengine yote yaliobakia, TAKUKURU haiwezi kufanya kazi, zaidi ya watanzania kushuhudia danadana na porojo.
skirobo69@yahoo.com
Hata Waziri Mkuu, Mizengo Pinda, anayetetea uamuzi wa serikali wa kushindwa kufikisha watuhumiwa ufisadi mahakamani, anafahamu hili.
Katika kipindi cha miezi 28 ya uongozi kwa Rais Jakaya Kikwete, ufisadi limetamkwa na kuandikwa mara nyingi zaidi.
Wakati hiyo ndiyo hali halisi, inaonekana Taasisi ya Kuzuia na Kupambana na Rushwa (TAKUKURU) yenye dhamana ya kuchunguza na kuchukua hatua kukomesha ufisadi, inafanya dhihaka kubwa.
Inachofanya TAKUKURU ni kupiga kelele zaidi na kujipipendekeza. Na hilo hawawezi kulipinga kwa sababu hawawezi kuonyesha vinginevyo kwa wananchi.
Viongozi wa TAKUKURU hawawezi kujitapa kuwa wanafanya kazi waliotumwa bila kutaja idadi ya kesi za vigogo ambazo wamezisimamia na wahusika kufikishwa mahakamani, achilia mbali kutiwa hatiani na mahakama.
Mfano mzuri ni uchunguzi wa sakata la rada. Hapa ndipo TAKUKURU inapoonekana kioja.
Katika sakata hili, wajanja wachache serikalini wameshirikiana na mfanyabiashara wa kiasia, na kufanikiwa kuingiza mkenge serikali kwa kuizia mtambo huo wa kuongozea ndege kwa bei kubwa ya dola za Marekani 36 milioni, sawa na zaidi ya Sh. 40 bilioni za Tanzania.
Pamoja na taasisi nyigi za ndani na nje ya nchi, zikiungwa mkono na Benki ya Dunia (WB), walipinga mradi huo kwa hoja kwamba unaliangamiza taifa; bado TAKUKURU ilikuwa imelala usingizi mnono.
Pamoja na kwamba kulikuwa na kila dalili za wakubwa kutafuna mlungula katika sakata zima la mkataba, bado TAKUKURU haikuwa na meno ya kusaka wahusika.
Si hivyo tu, TAKUKURU hawakuweza kusikiliza vilio wala manunguniko ya wananchi.
Kukurupuka kwa taasisi hii, kumekuja pale shirika la Uchunguzi wa Makosa ya Jinai nchini Uingereza (Serious Fraud Office -SFO), lilipoanza kulichunguza suala hilo.
Katika uchunguzi huo, SFO walilazimika wahusika kuja hapa ambako rada ndiko ilikouzwa; mamlaka ya nchi hii haikuweza kuwakatalia kuingia nchini kwa hofu ya kukatiwa misaada kutoka Uingereza.
Lakini haiyumkiniki iwapo TAKUKURU walitoa ushirikiano wa kutosha. Hii ni kwa sababu kama inavyodhirika sasa, wapo baadhi ya wakubwa katika serikali wametajwa kupokea milungula kwa lengo la kufanikisha dili hiyo.
Bila shaka maafisa wa SFO walishangaa sana kuwakuta wenzao wa Tanzania (TAKUKURU) hawana hata jalada la kuonyesha kile nao walichokuwa wanatarajiwa wakifanye upelelezi wa dili hiyo. Hakika, ni aibu tupu.
Hii inaeleweka, kwani serikali nzima ilikuwa haina ari ya kuchunguza sakata hili. Hata Rais Jakaya Kikwete, alipokuwa ziarani Uingereza mwaka 2006 aliwahi kutamka kwa Watanzania waishio huko kwamba sakata la rada ni lao Waingereza, si la Tanzania.
Alisema kama wakosaji ni kampuni ya BAE, ambayo iliiuzia rada hiyo Tanzania. Tayari imedhirika kwamba rais Kikwete hakuwa sahihi, kwani walioingizwa mjini ni sisi watanzania.
Wapo wanaosema, Kikwete alilazimika kutoa kauli hiyo, ili kulinda marafiki zake ndani ya serikali ambao muda si mrefu wataanza kumbuliwa.
Kuanzia wakati huo ndipo TAKUKURU ikaanza kuonekana nayo ni mshiriki mkuu wa SFO katika uchunguzi huo. Lakini hakuna ubishi kwamba sifa za matokeo ya upelelezi huo zinatokana na jitihada kubwa za Waingereza.
Hii ni aibu kubwa. Maana Waingereza ndiyo wanaonekana wanauchungu sana na mustakabli wa nchi hii kuliko hata viongozi wetu. Matokeo ya hali hiyo, tayari tumeanza kuyaona. TAKUKURU na serikali zimeanza kuvuliwa nguo.
Tayari Waziri wa Miundombinu, Andrew Chenge, amehojiwa na kupekuliwa. Kuna taarifa kwamba amekutwa na dola zaidi ya milioni tano (Sh. 6.5 bilioni) kwenye akaunti zake mbalimbali nje ya nchi.
Kufuatana na taarifa za SFO, fedha hizo zinashukiwa kuwa ni mlungula wa dili ya rada.
Wanangangania hivyo kutokana na jinsi mlolongo wa uhamishaji wake ulivyokuwa baina ya Uingereza, Uswisi na kisiwa cha Jersey. Chenge mwenyewe amekanusha kuwa fedha hizo zinahusiana na dili ya rada.
Taarifa za SFO zinasema bado anatafutwa mtuhumiwa mkuu katika dili hiyo, Saileshi Vithlani. Huyu ni Mtanzania anayedaiwa ana uraia pia wa Uingereza.
Taarifa zinasema, Vithlani ndiye aliyepewa dola za Kimarekani zaidi ya 12 milioni kutoka kwa kampuni ya BAE. Fedha hizo ziliingizwa katika akaunti yake ya Uswisi kama kamisheni kwa kufanikisha dili.
Kiasi hicho cha fedha kwa mujibu wa sheria za Uingereza hakiwezi kuwa kamisheni. Ni wazi kwamba hizo ni fedha za mlungula.
Kwa sheria za Uingereza, kamisheni halali ya dili kama hiyo, ni asilimia tatu. Kwa hali hiyo, Vithlani alitakiwa kulipwa karibu dola 400,000 milioni (zaidi ya Sh. 600,000) ambazo tayari alikuwa amekabidhiwa.
Kwa hivyo, SFO (inasemekana pamoja na Tanzania) inamtafuta Vithlani, na Taasisi ya Polisi Duniani (Interpol) imearifiwa kumkamata ili aeleze ni akina nani hasa aliwagawia dola hizo 12 milioni.
Tanzania, kwa maana ya TAKUKURU, haiwezi kuwa inamtafuta Vithlani kwa dhati, hilo nalikataa kabisa. Ni kwa sababu Vithlani ni mtu anayeweza kuja kuiumbua serikali. Hapa ndipo anapoweza kutaja vigogo aliokula nao pamoja mabilioni hayo ya fedha.
Isitoshe Vithlani aliwahi kutiwa mbaroni na TAKUKURU mwaka jana ambapo walimfikisha mahakamani kwa kusema uongo kwa wapelelezi na baadaye akatoweka nchini katika mazingira ya kutatanisha.
Yumkini wapelelezi wa SFO waliwashangaa sana wenzao wa TAKUKURU kwa kumwachia shahidi mkubwa kabisa katika kesi hiyo.
Haifahamiki ni kiasi gani viongozi wa TAKUKURU walilipwa na Vithlani ili kufakisha dili la kumwachia huru. Lakini bila shaka walilipwa.
Kutoroka kwake bila shaka kulipangwa, kwa sababu serikali haitaki kuwapo kwake nchini. Ni kama vile aliyekuwa Gavana wa Benki Kuu (BoT), Daudi Ballali, asivyotakiwa na wakubwa nchini.
Balali huku serikali ikujua kwamba ni mtuhumiwa muhimu katika sakata la wizi wa mabilioni ya shilingi katika akaunti ya EPA, serikali haijihangaishi kumtafuta.
Bila shaka baadhi ya wakubwa ndani ya serikali wanaogopa kutajwa juu ya jinsi walivyohusika na kadhia hiyo.
Ni wazi kwamba serikali haitaki kabisa kuwapo kwa Balali nchini. Na hata kauli ya TAKUKURU kwamba inapeleleza suala hilo, bado ukweli utabaki palepale kwamba hahitaji nchini kwa hofu ya kuumbua wakubwa.
Ndiyo maana Kamati maalum inayoongozwa na Mwanasheria Mkuu wa serikali, Johnson Mwanyika haisemi chochote iwapo inafanya jitihada zozote za kumtafuta, na kama wanafanya, jitihada hizo zimefikia wapi.
Kwa hivyo basi, iwapo Ballali atapatikana, basi hata huyu Vithlani atapatikana. Lakini kamwe haiingii maanani iwapo hayo yatatokea.
Lakini hili halishangazi sana kwa taasisi kama TAKUKURU ambayo kama nilivyotaja hapo awali, haina utamaduni wa kufanikisha uchunguzi wowote wa ufisadi unaohusu wakubwa. Siku zote, TAKUKURU inataka ionekane tu inafanya kazi, ijapokuwa moyoni hakuna kitu.
Tumeona uchunguzi wa Richmond na namna walivyojaribu kumsafisha aliyekuwa Waziri Mkuu, Edward Lowassa. Tumeona hili la EPA na sasa tunashuhudia uchunguzi huu wa rada.
Hakika, ukiacha hili la rada, mengine yote yaliobakia, TAKUKURU haiwezi kufanya kazi, zaidi ya watanzania kushuhudia danadana na porojo.
skirobo69@yahoo.com
Azimio Jipya
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 27, 2007
- 3,363
- 1,135
Takukuru wamepitwa na wakati tu!
Tatizo la msingi linaloikabili Takukuru ni lilelile ninalo mmaliza Ben Mkapa na kundi lake lisilojua kabisa kusoma kalenda ya Nyakati.
Benjamin na wenzake! alijikuta wakidanganyika kuwa Miiko na maadili yamefutwa na kufutika kweli kweli, hivyo yeye na wenzake wangeweza kujifanyia kila walilolifikiri ndani ya fikra zao kama viongozi...bila kujali maadili yeyote..why? Kwa kuwa Mwinyi na wenzie wamefuta miiko ya uongozi pale zanzibar..wakajihalalishia kilakitu mpaka kiwira na mengi mengineyo! wakishindwa kuona kuwa fukuto la nguvu ya umma litaamka na kuwa_expose to what they are! Na sasa wanasomeka vema mbele ya umma!
Takukuru ni wajinga tu! Ujinga wa kiupofu! Wanasahau nguvu ya umma na utu wake.
Kulingana na historia ya kijinga kuwa chombo kama Takukuru ni cha kulinda watu kama wakina Benjamin Mkapa na viongozi wote wa juu serekalini..Takukuru ikajua kuwa ujinga huo kamwe hautafikia kwenye kikomo.
Ndio maana kwa kufuatia maadili hayo potofu Takukuru walipong'amua ukweli kuhusu Richmond waliendeleza ujinga kwa kufunika ukweli ili kuwalinda wahusika wakuu amabao leo wanawajibika wazi kabisa hadharani kwa kazi nzuri inayofanywa na nguvu ya watu wenyewe kwenye jamii na wala sio Takukuru.
Takukuru wanashindwa kusoma nyakati kuwa hizi sio enzi za kuuulinda uongozi uliooza...huu ni muda wa kuwalinda watu na wanajamii...hili halikwepeki. Ni Masuala ya Nyakati!
Wakina Hosea na wenzake wanashindwa kwenda na wakati, wanashindwa kwenda pamoja na nguvu ya watu...wanajikuta katikati ya makundi mawili, wanashindwa kabisa kuona wasimamie na wamtetee nani? wako kwenye dilema kubwa. ... na hilo litwafanya wawajibike na kuwa hapo wanapojikuta. Hapo SFO walipowaweka. Kwani ndio stahili yao!
Ndio maana very soon Takukuru na uongozi wake wote ..watakuwa hawana namna bali.....TO PAY THE PRICE!!!
Tatizo la msingi linaloikabili Takukuru ni lilelile ninalo mmaliza Ben Mkapa na kundi lake lisilojua kabisa kusoma kalenda ya Nyakati.
Benjamin na wenzake! alijikuta wakidanganyika kuwa Miiko na maadili yamefutwa na kufutika kweli kweli, hivyo yeye na wenzake wangeweza kujifanyia kila walilolifikiri ndani ya fikra zao kama viongozi...bila kujali maadili yeyote..why? Kwa kuwa Mwinyi na wenzie wamefuta miiko ya uongozi pale zanzibar..wakajihalalishia kilakitu mpaka kiwira na mengi mengineyo! wakishindwa kuona kuwa fukuto la nguvu ya umma litaamka na kuwa_expose to what they are! Na sasa wanasomeka vema mbele ya umma!
Takukuru ni wajinga tu! Ujinga wa kiupofu! Wanasahau nguvu ya umma na utu wake.
Kulingana na historia ya kijinga kuwa chombo kama Takukuru ni cha kulinda watu kama wakina Benjamin Mkapa na viongozi wote wa juu serekalini..Takukuru ikajua kuwa ujinga huo kamwe hautafikia kwenye kikomo.
Ndio maana kwa kufuatia maadili hayo potofu Takukuru walipong'amua ukweli kuhusu Richmond waliendeleza ujinga kwa kufunika ukweli ili kuwalinda wahusika wakuu amabao leo wanawajibika wazi kabisa hadharani kwa kazi nzuri inayofanywa na nguvu ya watu wenyewe kwenye jamii na wala sio Takukuru.
Takukuru wanashindwa kusoma nyakati kuwa hizi sio enzi za kuuulinda uongozi uliooza...huu ni muda wa kuwalinda watu na wanajamii...hili halikwepeki. Ni Masuala ya Nyakati!
Wakina Hosea na wenzake wanashindwa kwenda na wakati, wanashindwa kwenda pamoja na nguvu ya watu...wanajikuta katikati ya makundi mawili, wanashindwa kabisa kuona wasimamie na wamtetee nani? wako kwenye dilema kubwa. ... na hilo litwafanya wawajibike na kuwa hapo wanapojikuta. Hapo SFO walipowaweka. Kwani ndio stahili yao!
Ndio maana very soon Takukuru na uongozi wake wote ..watakuwa hawana namna bali.....TO PAY THE PRICE!!!
Mwafrika wa Kike
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 5, 2007
- 5,185
- 64
Takukuru ndio nini vile ..... kwa kutumia maneno ya Mzee Kibaki (jirani yetu wa kasikazini).... Takukuru ni mavi ya kuku.........lol
Mwafrika wa Kike
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 5, 2007
- 5,185
- 64
kumbe ulimchagua Kikwete?
Pundit
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 4, 2007
- 3,733
- 146
Haika,
This very disturbing phenomena is the inverse of "blaming the victim" qualifies as "praising the culprit".
Kikwete na uzembe wake ndiye aliyechangia uozo huu (kwa kutowajibisha watendaji wazembe na wala rushwa) na hastahili pongezi za aina yoyote.
Mtu anaweza kusema kwamba kama tungekuwa na rais Mzee Mwenye Kisukari na ma pressure lakini mtendaji mzuri angeweza kuwaondoa watendaji wabovu hawa na kuweka mazingira yaliyo "pressure free"
Hii uliyofanya hapa inaweza kuwa "age discrimination", Umewaona marais Kufuor wa Ghana au Abdoulaye Wade wa Senegal, miaka yao na vitu wanavyofanya huko? Certainly havifikii mediocrity ya Kikwete.
Gang Chomba
Platinum Member
- Feb 29, 2008
- 20,734
- 4,869
TAKUKURU ni genge la wahuni...
KakindoMaster
JF-Expert Member
- Dec 5, 2006
- 1,356
- 91
Wakuu
Hivi Tanzania kuna cha takukuru au takukura hakuna kitu hapa, ni kutafutiana ulaji tu. Huna haja ya kujiuliza hivi kwa nini hicho kitengo kisivunjwe? Mimi kwa kawaida ninavyojua kitengo kimewekwa kuwapa watanzania wenzetu ajira lakini hakuna kazi kubwa sana inayofanyika.
Tanzania tukipata kiongozi ambaye amedhamilia kuleta maendeleo atavunja vitengo/tume nyingi sana mojawapo ikiwa ni takukuru. Kwa mfano mdogo angalia suala la Meremeta na Tangold wangapi wameenda wamefuaatilia info zake?, Unakuta taasisi tatu au nne zinafanya kazi hiyo hiyo moja na wanafanya nusu nusu.
Kwa kifupi najua viongozi wa sasa hawako makini na maendeleo ya tanzania. Lakini kiongozi yeyote makini hana budi kuangalia vitengo mbali mbali na kuipunguza matumizi ya serikali.
Cha kwanza kuvunja ni takukuru hili usalama wa taifa ufanye kazi hiyo. Nilichogundua tatizo siyo rushwa za shs 1,000 tatizo la nchi yetu ni rushwa za mabilioni sasa. Amabazo dili moja linaweza kujenga shule na zahanati lukuki.
Hivi Tanzania kuna cha takukuru au takukura hakuna kitu hapa, ni kutafutiana ulaji tu. Huna haja ya kujiuliza hivi kwa nini hicho kitengo kisivunjwe? Mimi kwa kawaida ninavyojua kitengo kimewekwa kuwapa watanzania wenzetu ajira lakini hakuna kazi kubwa sana inayofanyika.
Tanzania tukipata kiongozi ambaye amedhamilia kuleta maendeleo atavunja vitengo/tume nyingi sana mojawapo ikiwa ni takukuru. Kwa mfano mdogo angalia suala la Meremeta na Tangold wangapi wameenda wamefuaatilia info zake?, Unakuta taasisi tatu au nne zinafanya kazi hiyo hiyo moja na wanafanya nusu nusu.
Kwa kifupi najua viongozi wa sasa hawako makini na maendeleo ya tanzania. Lakini kiongozi yeyote makini hana budi kuangalia vitengo mbali mbali na kuipunguza matumizi ya serikali.
Cha kwanza kuvunja ni takukuru hili usalama wa taifa ufanye kazi hiyo. Nilichogundua tatizo siyo rushwa za shs 1,000 tatizo la nchi yetu ni rushwa za mabilioni sasa. Amabazo dili moja linaweza kujenga shule na zahanati lukuki.
Democrasia
Member
- Feb 1, 2008
- 79
- 3
Jamani kama mambo ndio haya hakuna kitakacho endelea
Ifuatayo ni maendeleo ya uchunguzi wa ubadhirifu MUWSA
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION REPORT
FILE: PCCB/KIL/ENQ/08/2008
SUSPECTS
1) NAME : REHEMA NELSON [D1]
TITLE : ACCOUNTS TECHNICIAN
MOSHI URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY,
ADRESS : 1001 MOSHI
2) NAME : WITNESS SHOO [D2]
TITLE : ACCOUNTS TECHNICIAN
MOSHI URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY,
ADRESS : 1001 MOSHI
3) NAME : SAMWEL M. MILLU [D3]
TITLE : ACCOUNTS TECHNICIAN
MOSHI URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY,
ADRESS : 1001 MOSHI
4) NAME : JOYCE MSIRU [D4]
TITLE : FINANCE &ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER,
MOSHI URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY,
ADRESS : 1001 MOSHI.
ALLEGATIONS
EMBEZZLEMENT AND ABUSE OF POSITION CONTRARY TO SECTION 31 AND 30 OF THE PREVENTION AND COMBATING OF CORRUPTION ACT NO. 11 OF 2007.
FIRST CRIME REPORT
On a date not well known a call from anonymous caller invited the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Bureau to investigate the integrity of JOYCE MSIRU. JOYCE MSIRU is the head of Finance & Administration Department in Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority. The anonymous caller alleges JOYCE MSIRU on having a tendency of not retiring Board Meeting sitting allowances but for non attended Board Members. The anonymous caller was not sure as to which offence JOYCE MSIRU might have committed but the source observed her acts as unethical.
INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY
Investigation was conducted and the main purpose was to prove or disprove the above allegation. This Investigation was to adopt various methodology including taking or collecting documents by search and seizure, taking statements from various staff of Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority including statements of the four suspects Rehema Nelson, Samwel M. Millu, Witness Shoo and Joyce Msiru and Searching Bank Accounts of the four suspects.
ANALYSIS: WITNESS STATEMENTS
DR. LUCIANA APOLLO MARUMA C1
She is a member of the Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority Board of Directors. She is a Medical Doctor at the Mawenzi Regional Hospital. She remembers to have received an invitation letter on 05th December 2007 to attend the Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority Board Meeting on 13th December 2007.
Maruma says she could not attend such Board meeting on 13th December 2007 due to circumstances beyond human control and that she was attending major operation at the KCMC Referral Hospital. She says Board allowance payments are made to a member who has attended a particular Board Meeting and that no payment is made a member who has not attended a meeting.
She says because of that she was not paid seating allowance because she didnt attend the meeting and that if she could have attended the meeting her entitlement as a Board member is 400000/=. She added that if you carefully look on the payroll you will not be able to see a signature against her name.
NDESHUKURWA A. SUMARI [C2]
She was a member of the Board of Directors of Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority from 2007 to 2007. She was the Kilimanjaro Regional Administrative Secretary from 2004 to 28th October 2007 when she officially retired from the public service. She could not have attended the Boards meeting on 13th December 2007 because she had already retired from the Public Service on 28th October 2007. If it was necessary to attend the meeting then her successor Hilda Gondwe [RAS] was the one to attend.
Before retirement she used to attend Boards meetings and usually sitting allowances were being paid after the closing remarks from the chairman and Joyce Msiru were the one who paid us the said allowance of which the rate was 400,000/= shillings. Because of her non attendance, she expected the amount 400,000/= shillings allocated to her to be taken back to bank via ordinary procedures in accordance with the MUWSA financial Regulations.
PROF. SULEMAN A CHAMBO C3
He is a member of the Board of Directors of Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority. He has the knowledge of the EWURA meeting on 13th September 2007 but he didnt attend the meeting because of conflict of interest. If he could/would have attended the meeting then his entitlement according to Payment Voucher [No 00016454] is 400,000/= shillings as sitting allowance.
He has the knowledge of the Board meeting on 13th December 2007 but he couldnt attend the meeting. Basing on documents [PV No.00017018] Ndeshukurwa Sumari, Dr. Luciana Maruma, and myself didnt attend the meeting. In our togetherness we were supposed to be paid 1,200,000/= shillings as sitting allowance i.e. 400,000/= each.
Because of our non attendance, I expected the amount 1,200,000/= shillings allocated to three of us to be taken back to bank on the spot via ordinary procedures in accordance with the MUWSA financial Regulations. He has the knowledge of the Board meeting on 12th December 2007 but he couldnt attend the meeting. If he could/would have attended the meeting then his entitlement according to Payment Voucher [No 00017017] is 400,000/= shillings as sitting allowance.
CHRISTINE MKAMBA C4
She is the internal auditor of Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority. she has the knowledge of the EWURA meeting on 13th September 2007, and that basing on the payment voucher number 0016454, Rehema Nelson ought to have retired 400,000/= shillings because of non attendance of one board member.
The procedure was that Rehema Nelson ought to have issued a receipt acknowledging revenue of 400,000/= shillings and bank the money immediately on the following day. Her comments are that, looking on the payment voucher and its attachments, it is evident that there is no Revenue Receipt attached to the payment voucher to show that the 400,000/= shillings were retired by Rehema Nelson.
she has the knowledge of the meeting on 12th December 2007, and that basing on the payment voucher number 00017017, Samwel Millu ought to have retired 400,000/= shillings because of non attendance of one board member. As a matter of procedure Samwel Millu ought to have issued a receipt acknowledging revenue of 400,000/= shillings and bank the money immediately on the following day. Internal Auditors comments are that, looking on the payment voucher number 00017017 and its attachments, it is evident that there is no Revenue Receipt attached to the payment voucher showing that the 400,000/= shillings were retired by Samwel Millu.
She has the knowledge of the meeting on 13th December 2007, and that basing on the payment voucher number 00017018, Witness Shoo ought to have retired 1,200,000/= shillings because of non attendance of three board members. As a matter of procedure Witness Shoo ought to have issued a receipt acknowledging revenue of 1,200,000/= shillings and bank the money immediately on the following day. She said looking on the payment voucher number 00017018 and its attachments, it is evident that there is no Revenue Receipt attached to the payment voucher to show that 1,200,000/= shillings were retired by Witness Shoo. She said; Financial Regulation of Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority to speaks on Cash and Banking; the same demands cash collection/cash revenue to be banked before spending and that payments documents must to be prepared first before spending.
Looking on documents it seems that, payment voucher number 00017018, 00017017 and 0016454 and cheques number 586879, 586878 and 586317 were prepared after their respective meetings were already concluded i.e. 13th December 2007, 12th December 2007 and 13th September 2007, and that alone is contrary to financial regulations. She said if it was necessary to draw the money after the conclusion of those meetings then, the amount from Bank was supposed to be less than the drawn amount because of the non attended board members i.e. 1,200,000/=, 400,000/= and 400,000/=.
ISSA YUSUPH OSENA C5
He is the head of Technical department at MUWSA. Having shown Payment Voucher Number 00017017 he admitted to have knowledge of it as it bears his signature and that he was the one who authorized it to facilitate the finance and audit committee meeting. By the time he was the acting Managing Director. Basing on the Payment Voucher, Samwel Millu was paid 2,520,000/= shillings to facilitate the same.
He authorized the payment on 17 December 2007. Samwel Millu prepared the Payment Voucher on 13 December 2007 while the meeting or the committee sat on 12 December 2007. Financial regulation insists on preparing payment document before expenditure and not after spending. As a matter of procedure payment document for the committee on 12 December 2007 ought to have been prepared before and take money from bank before 12 December 2007.
The committee meeting was budgeted and there was no any reason for preparing the payment documents after the committee meeting On 12 December 2007 and after the closure of the meeting members were paid allowance by using day collections of such a date. Financial regulation requires collection to be deposited/banked immediately before any spending. The question as to why the meeting was financed by day collection he thinks accounts people should respond to the question because he is sure that they know that any expenses or expenditure must be paid by cheque.
Prof. Suleman chambo didnt attend the meeting on 12 December 2007 and if would have attend his entitlement was 400,000/= as sitting allowance. Procedure demands if there is any balance resulting from non-attendance of a board member then such a balance is taken back to the cashier and issue revenue receipt voucher but having a look at the payment voucher and its supporting documents it seems the money 400,000/= was not retired. He thought samwel millu should be held responsible to explain where the money is.
He also has knowledge of the Board Meeting on 13 December 2007. Ndeshukurwa Sumari, Dr. Luciana Maruma and prof. Suleiman Chambo didnt attend the meeting and they were supposed to be paid 1,200,000/= shillings in total [400,000/= each]. The meeting was budgeted and because of the non attendance of the three Board Members then 1,200,000/= ought to have been retired.
Having seen the Payment Voucher Number 00017018 and its supporting documents he concluded to say there was no retirement made after the meeting on 13 December 2007. He thought that witness Shoo should be held responsible to disclose where the money is
ANALYSIS: SUSPECTS STATEMENTS
REHEMA NELSON MINJA D1
she is Assistant Accountant or rather Accounts Technician at Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority and she was the one who took from Bank a sum of shillings 4,420,000/= allocated or set aside
to facilitate sitting allowance payments to Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority Board Members who attended Board Meeting on 13th September 2007. She is the one who prepared payment voucher no. 0016454 and cheque no. 586317. Having taken such amount from Bank she was instructed to pack them in envelops and handle them to Joyce Msiru that she may execute payments to Board Members.
She says according to the Payroll board members who signed to take seating allowances on that day [13th September] after attending the EWURA meeting were eleven members only [11], though they ought to be twelve [12]. She says according to the Payroll board members who didnt sign to take the allowance were Prof. Chambo Suleman who if he could have attended then his entitlement were shillings 400,000/=.
He says, once it happens that the amount set aside for Board Meetings is not exhausted then the procedure is that the balance is brought back to the cashier and the same issues a receipt of the same amount and then she attach the receipt to the payment voucher showing that the amount set aside for Board Members was not exhausted.
Having being shown the payment voucher number 00017018 she could not see any receipt attached to the effect that there was any balance on 13th September 2007 meeting. She says until today she has not seen any amount of money brought back to her as balance remaining from the meeting on 13th September 2007.
WITNESS JULIUS SHOO D2
she is Assistant Accountant or rather Accounts Technician at Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority and she was the one who took from Bank a sum of shillings 4,420,000/= allocated or set aside
to facilitate sitting allowance payments to Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority Board Members. She is the one who prepared payment voucher no. 00017018 and cheque no. 586879.
Having taken such amount from Bank she was instructed to pack them in envelops and handle them to Joyce Msiru that she may excecute payments to Board Members. She says according to the Payroll, board members who signed to take seating allowances on that day were Paul Chikira shilings 500,000/= Issa Ossena shilings 400,000/= Frederick Monyo shilings 400,000/=, Baltazal Njau shilingi 400,000/=, Samwel Moshi shilings 400,000/=, Benedeta Kinabo shilings 400,000/=, Amina Mbarok shilings 400,000/=, John Mchimbi shilings 250,000/= and Joyce Msiru shilings 250,000/=.
She says according to the Payroll board members who didnt sign to take the allowance were Prof. Chambo Suleman shilings 400,000/=, Dr Luciana Maruma shilings 400,000/= and Ndeshukurwa Sumari shilings 400000/=. In total they were supposed to be paid a sum of 1,200,000/= if they could have attended the meeting on 13th December 2007.
He says, once it happens that the amount set aside for Board Meetings is not exhausted then the balance is brought back to the cashier and the same issues a receipt of the same amount and then she attach the receipt to the payment voucher showing that the amount set aside for Board Members was not exhausted. Having being shown the payment voucher no. 00017018 she could not see any receipt attached to the effect that there was any balance on13th December 2007.
SAMWELI M. MILLU D3.
He is Assistant Accountant or rather Accounts Technician at Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority and he was the one who took from Bank a sum of shillings 2,520,000/= allocated or set aside to facilitate sitting allowance payments to Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority finance & Auditing Committee members. He is the one who prepared payment voucher number 00017017, 00017018 and 0016454 and cheque no. 586878 of 17 December 2007 after their meetings were already concluded days before the dates of preparing payment vouchers.
He says that according to the committee members payroll the meeting on 12th Dec 2007 had seven members only and these are Amina Mburuku [allowance paid] 400,000/= Issa Osena [allowance paid 400,000/=] Baltazar Njau [allowance paid 400,000/=] Benadeta Kinabo [allowance paid 400,000/=] John Nchimbu [allowance paid 250,000/=] Joyce Msiru [allowance paid 250,000/=] na Christina Mkamba [allowance paid 250,000/=]. He says that according to the committee members payroll Prof. Suleman Chambo dint ettend the meeting on 12th Dec 2007 and that if he could have attended the meeting he was entitled to sing the taking of 400,000/= but the allowance was not paid to him because he didnt attend the meeting.
JOYCE MSIRU D4
She is the finance and administration manager at MUWSA. She says in 13 September 2007 there was EWURA meeting and MUWSA Board Members attended. Prof. Suleiman Chambo as a board member didnt attend the meeting on 13 September 2007. He was entitled to sitting allowance of 400,000/= if he could have participated. If there is any balance of money resulting from the non-attendance of a board member the money is taken back to cashier who in return issues a revenue receipt voucher and takes them to bank as collection of the day.
Having shown payment voucher no 0016454 and its supporting documents she confesses that the balance was not retired after the meeting and instead thereof she confesses to have remained with the money and went to England. She left for England on 13 September 2007 and stayed there until 6 November 2007. However she is not sure whether retirement was done after her arrival. She admits that financial regulation demands retirement to be done within 14 days and Rehema was the one supposed to retire as the payment voucher bears her name. She admits the meeting to be financed by day collection. She admits it to be irregularity to finance any expenditure by taking money from day collection. Day collection must be taken to bank immediately and any spending is by cheque. She admits that even after coming back from England on 6th November 2007 she didnt surrender the balance to the cashier for retirement.
She also admits to remain with the balance of 400,000/= shillings as a result of non-attended board member prof. Suleman Chambo on 12 December, 2007. Having shown payment voucher No 00017017 and its supporting documents she admits the money to have not been retired. She admits that the meeting on 12 December, 2007 was financed by day collection of which financial regulation does not allow.
She admits the payment voucher to finance the meeting on 12th December 2007 was authorized on 17th Dec 2007 while the meeting finances came from day collection on 12th December, 2007. However she alleges to have surrendered the balance of 400,000/= to Anna Maurice on 14th December 2007 and that she was supposed to retire them immediately. She admitted to be irregularly to remain with office money for more than 14 days without justification.
She admits to have knowledge of the board meeting on 13th December 2007 and that Ndeshikurwa Sumari, Dr. Luciana Maruma and Prof. Suleman Chambo didnt attend the meeting. They were to be paid 1,200,000/= in total if they could have attended. She alleges to have surrendered the balance of 1,200,000/= resulting from the non-attended board members to Anna Maurice on 14 December 2007 that she may retire, but she leaned later that there was no retirement made by Anna Maurice. She admitted all the three meeting to have been budgeted before and that it was contrary to financial regulation to finance the meeting by using day collection as it was done.
INVESTIGATION FINDINGS
Having conducted Investigation bellow were and shall remain to be the findings;
1. Investigation reveals Moshi Urban Water
Supply & Sewerage Authority [simply referred to as MUWSA] to have been established under the Water Utilization [Control and Regulation] Act Cap 331 and Water Works Act, Cap 272as one of the Regional Urban Water authorities declared by the Minister for Water and livestock Development.
2. The authority has been declared by the
Minister for Water and livestock Development to be autonomous Urban Water Supply & Sewerage Authority and the same came into operation on 1st January 1998. [Cap. 331 and Cap 272]
3. The authority is categorized under Group
[A] and that the same is obliged to operate according to Waterworks Ordinance, Waterworks Rules, Waterworks Regulations and Operation Guidelines which requires the authority to have Financial Regulations. [Cap 331 and Cap 272]
4. The law [Cap 331 and Cap 272] reveal the
Overall Powers of the authority to be vested in the Board of Directors, while the day to day management is under the direction of the Managing Director [Cap 331 and Cap 272]
5. Documents reveal JOYCE MSIRU to have been permanently employed by Moshi Urban Water Supply And Sewerage Authority in the Department of Finance and Administration as finance and Administrative Manager and that until to date she is still the holder of such post[ exhibits D4].
6. Documents reveal Rehema Nelson to
have been permanently employed by Moshi Urban Water Supply And Sewerage Authority in the Department of Finance and Administration on 14 August 2006 with effect from 1st July 06; Investigation reveal Rehema Nelson`s confirmation was on 3rd August 2007 with effect from 1st July 2006 [Exhibit D1].
7. Documents reveal that Samwel M. Millu was
employed by Moshi Urban Water Supply And Sewerage Authority on 19th April 2005 on Permanent terms as Accounts Technician III, in the Department of Finance and Administration; Documents reveal that on 24th July 2006 Samwel M. Millu was confirmed in his employment with effect from 19th April 2006 [Exhibit D3];
8. Documents reveal Witness Shoo to
have been permanently employed by Moshi Urban Water And Supply & Sewerage Authority as accounts Technician in the department of finance and Administration on 08th July 2004, with effect from 1st July 2004 and was confirmed on 17th November 2005. [Exhibit D2]
9. Investigation reveals that on 14th
September 2007 Rehema Nelson, accounts personal was given a sum of 4,420,000/= to facilitate special allowance payment to the District Commission Hon. Mussa Samizi while officiating EWURA Public Inquiry on MUWASA Water Tariff Raising Request on 13th September 2007 [Exhibit D1, E2]
10. Investigation revels that the amount
allocated to the District Commissioner was 200,000/= as officiating allowance of EWURA Public Inquiry on MUWSA Water Tariff Raising Request on 13th September 2007. [Exhibit D1, E2]
11. Investigation reveals that other
expenditure attached to 4,420,000/= was special allowance to Board Members who attended the EWURA Public Inquiry on MUWSA Water Tariff Raising Request on 13th September 2007. [Exhibit D1, E2]
12. Investigation reveals Rehema Neslon to
have been given 4,420,000/= for the above mentioned expenditure through payment voucher No 0016454 and cheque No. 586317 [Exhibit D1, E2]
13. Investigation reveals MUWSA to have set
aside a sum 3,620,000/= as special allowance to nine Board Members whom Moshi Urban Water Supply And Sewerage Authority expected them to attend the EWURA Public Inquiry on MUWSA Water Tariff Raising Request on 13th September 2007. [Exhibit E2, E4, E3, E5, E6, E7, E8, E9, E10, D1]
14. Documents reveal that, in 2007 Moshi
Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority Board Members were Mr. Paul O. Chikira, Anthony S. Kasota, Mrs Ndeshukurwa Sumari, Prof. suleman A. Chambo, Benadeta Kinabo, Mrs Amina Mbaronk, Samwel N. Moshi, Dr Aliciana A. Maruma and Hon. Frederick E. Monyo. [Exhibit E2, E4, E3, E5, E6, E7, E8, E9, E10, D1]
15. Documents reveal that prof. chambo
suleman was SERVED a short notice to attend the so called EWURA Public Inquiry on MUWSA Water Tariff Raising Request on13th September 2007 via letter marked muwsa/ms/8/vol.III/32. [E4]
16. Documents reveal that prof. Suleiman A.
Chambo as a Board Member [though he was served with an invitation letter] didnt attend the EWURA Public Inquiry on MUWSA Water Tariff Raising Request on 13th September 2007. [Exhibit E2, E4]
17. Documents reveal; the payment voucher used
to pay Rehema Nelson a sum of 4,420,000/= as special allowance to Board Members was prepared, checked, approved and authorized on 14/09/2007 while payments to board members were done on 13th September 2007. [Exhibit E2]
18. Documents reveal Eng. Issa osena, Mrs
Joyce Msira and John Nchimbi to have participated the Boad Meeting on 13th September 2007 and that they were paid a sum of 250,000/= each of them. [Exhibit E2].
19 Documents reveal payments to Board
Members to have been done on 13th September 2007 when the meeting was executed, While payment voucher and its authorization was done on 14th September 2007 [Exhibit E2]
20. Investigation reveals or finds no
document supporting the recovery of 400,000/= Tsh for non attendance of prof. Suleman A. Chambo who didnt attend the EWURA Public Inquiry on MUWSA Water Tariff Raising Request on 13th September 2007. [Exhibit E2, D1, C4, C3]
21. Investigation reveals Paul O. Chikira
Frederick F. Monyo, Luciana A. Maruma, Samwel N. Moshi, Amina Mbaronk, Benadeta Kinabo, Prof. Suleiman A. Chambo and Ndeshukurwa A. Sumari to have been invited to attend the EWURA Public Inquiry on MUWSA Water Tariff Raising Request on 13th September 2007. [E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7, E8, E9 and E10]
22. Investigation reveals Moshi Urban Water &
Sewerage Authority to have no Board Minutes Records on the meeting of 13th September 2007 as it was the meeting in the control of Energy and Water Utility Regulatory Authority [simply referred to as EWURA].
23. It follows therefore that because there
was no Board Minutes Records on such a date then the only document to show who actually attended the meeting or not is the Board Members Pay-Roll where each member had to sign for seating allowance[E2]
24. Documents reveal that on 17th December 2007
Samwel Millu was paid a sum of 2,520,000 to facilitate sitting allowance payments to Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority finance & Auditing Committee meeting held on 12th December 2007[Exhibit E11, D3]
25. Documents reveal Samwel Millu was paid a
sum of Tsh 2,252,000/= on 17th December 2007 through payment voucher No. 00017017 and cheque No. 586878 to facilitate the payments to committee members who sat on 12th December 2007 (Exhibit D3, E11).
26. Documents reveal the payment voucher to
have been prepared, checked on 13th December 2007, approved and authorized on 17th December 2007 , and that the money was received by Samwel Millu on the same 17th December 2007.[ Exhibit D3, E11]
27. Investigation finds no reasons assigned
as to why committee members to be paid on 12th December 2007 followed by the preparation and checking of the PV on 13th December 2007 while their approval and authorization was done on 17th December 2007 [Exhibit D3, E11]
28. Documents reveal Mrs Amina Mbaronk Eng.
Issa Osena, Eng Baltazari E. Njau and Benadeta Kinabo to have attended the Moshi Urban Water Supply And Sewerage Authority Finance & Auditing Committee held on 12th December 2007, with exception of Prof. Suleman A. Chambo who didnt attend the committee meeting (Exhibit D3, E11, E22).
29. Documents reveals that Prof. Chambo was
given a notice to attend the meeting on 12th Dec 2007 via letter marked muwsa/ms/8/vol.III/48 and due to reason best known to himself he could not attend.[ Exhibit E14,E22]
30. Documents reveal other members who
Participated the Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority Finance & Auditing Committee held on 12th December 2007, to be John Nchimbi, Joyce Msiru and Christina Mkamba as heads of departments [Exhibit E11]
31. Documents reveals; Moshi Urban Water
Supply And Sewerage Authority Finance & Auditing Committee members were paid a sum of 400,000/= shillings as sitting allowance while other participating members were paid a sum of Tsh 250,000/= shillings each hence a sum of 2,252,000/= shillings [Exhibit D3, E11]
32. Investigation finds no documents showing
that 400,000/= shillings were recovered by Moshi Urban Water Supply And Sewerage Authority [MUWSA] as a balance for non attended Finance & Auditing Committee member Prof. Suleman A. Chambo. [Exhibit D3, E11, E22]
33. Documents reveal witness shoo to have
been paid a sum of 4,420,000/= shillings through payment voucher No 17018, and cheque No.586879 as funds to facilitate the payment of sitting allowance during Board meeting of Moshi Urban Water Supply And Sewerage Authority (Exhibit D2, E12¬)
34. Documents reveal the Board Meeting to
have sat on 13th December 2007 and a total of 4,020,000/= shillings was prepared or allocated for the payment at a rate of 400,000/= shillings each with exception of 500,000/= shillings to the Board chairman (Exhibit D2, E12)
35. Documents reveals three Board members of
Moshi Urban Water Supply And Sewerage Authority to have not attended the meeting on 13th December 2007 and these are Dr. Luciana A. Maruma, Ndeshukurwa A. Sumari and Prof. Suleiman A. Chambo of which in total they were supposed to be paid a sum of 1,200,000/= shillings if they could have attended. [E12, D2, C1, C2, C3].
36. Investigation reveals that there was no
any invitation to either Ndeshukurwa A. Sumari or Anthony Kasonta to attend the 13th December 2007 Board Meeting but documents reveals invitation or short notice to the meeting was sent to Prof. Suleiman A. Chambo and Dr. Luciana A. Maruma[E20,E24]
37. Board Minutes records reveal that Board
members who didnt attend such a meeting were Anthony Kasonta, Prof. Suleman Chambo, and Dr. Luciana Maruma and that investigation finds no reason as to why there is such a contradiction [E23, E12]
38. Investigation finds no documents showing
recovery of 1,200,000/= shillings as a balance for non attendance of three Board members on 13th December 2007 [Exhibit D2, E12,]
39. Investigation reveals other participating
members to be John Nchimbi and Mrs Joyce Msiru as Moshi Urban Water Supply And Sewerage Authority heads of departments who were paid a sum of Tsh 250,000/= shillings each as sitting allowance of the same. [Exhibit D2, E12,]
40. Documents reveal that, on 05th December
2007 Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority gave a short notice to Board members to attend the so called extra-ordinary Board Meeting on 13th December 2007 to deliberate financial statement for the year ended 30th June 2007. [E13, E14, E15, E16, E17, E18, E29 and E20]
41. Rehema Nelson admits to have been given
the sum of 4,420,000 shillings to facilitate special allowance payment to the District Commission Hon. Mussa Samizi and other Board Members during EWURA Public Inquiry on MUWASA Water Tariff Raising Request on 13 September 2007, [Exhibit D1, E1, E2]
42. Rehema Nelson admits to have been given
the sum of tsh 4,420,000/= shillings for the above mentioned expenditure through payment voucher Number 0016454 and cheque Number 586317 [Exhibit D1, E1, E2,].
43. Investigation reveals that having been
given such an amount, Rehema Nelson was instructed to park them in envelops and finally handled them to JOYCE MSIRU[Finance and Administration Manager] for payments to subjects of such expenditure[Exhibit D1]
44. Investigation reveal that Incase of any
balance remaining as a result of non attendance of any Board Member then the balance was supposed to be returned to her and issue a receipt to that effect and attach such receipt to the payment voucher showing that the amount set for such expenditure was not fully exhausted.[ Exhibit D1]
45. Investigation reveals that there was no
any balance brought back to Rehema Nelson remaining as a result of non attendance of any Board Member for her to issue a receipt to that effect and attach such receipt to the payment voucher showing that the amount set for such expenditure was not fully exhausted[Exhibit D1].
46. Further to that Rehema Nelson adds that
until the time when her statements were being taken, there was no any balance brought to her that she may issue a receipt to that effect and attach such receipt to the payment voucher showing that the amount set for such expenditure was not fully exhausted.[ Exhibit D1]
47. Witness Shoo admits to have been given
the sum of 4,420,000/= shillings to facilitate special allowance payment Board Members during EWURA Public Inquiry on MUWASA Water Tariff Raising Request on 13 September 2007, [Exhibit D2, E12]
48. Witness Shoo admits to have been given
the sum of 4,420,000/= shillings for the above mentioned expenditure through payment voucher No. 00017018 and cheque No. 586879 [Exhibit D2, E12,].
49. Investigation reveals; having been given such an amount, Witness Shoo was instructed to park them in envelops and finally handled them to JOYCE MSIRU [Finance and Administration Manager] for payments to subjects of such expenditure [Exhibit D2, E12, D4].
50. Investigation reveal that Incase of any
balance remaining as a result of non attendance of any Board Member then the balance was supposed to be returned to Witness Shoo and issue a receipt to that effect and attach such receipt to the payment voucher showing that the amount set for such expenditure was not fully exhausted.[ Exhibit D2, D4, E12]
51. Investigation reveals that there was no
any balance brought back to Witness Shoo remaining as a result of non attendance of any Board Member for her to issue a receipt to that effect and attach such receipt to the payment voucher showing that the amount set for such expenditure was not fully exhausted[Exhibit D2, E12, D4].
52. Further to that Witness Shoo adds that
until the time when her statements were being taken, there was no any balance brought to her that she may issue a receipt to that effect and attach such receipt to the payment voucher showing that the amount set for such expenditure was not fully exhausted.[ Exhibit D2]
53. Samwel Millu admits to have been given
the sum of 2,520,000/= shillings to facilitate sitting allowance payments to Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority finance & Auditing Committee meeting held on 12th Dec 2007[Exhibit D3, E11].
54. Samwel Millu admits to have been
Given/Paid the sum of 2,252,000/= shillings for the above mentioned expenditure through payment voucher Number 00017017 and cheque Number 586878 [Exhibit D3, D4, E11].
55. Investigation reveals that Samwel Millu
having been given such an amount, was instructed to park them in envelops and finally handled them to JOYCE MSIRU [Finance and Administration Manager] for payments to subjects of such expenditure[Exhibit D3, D4, E11].
56. Investigation reveals that there was no
any balance brought back to Samwel Millu remaining as a result of non attendance of any Board Member for him to issue a receipt to that effect and attach such receipt to the payment voucher showing that the amount set for such expenditure was not fully exhausted[Exhibit D3, E11, D4].
57. Further to that Samwel Millu adds that
until the time when his statements were being taken, there was no any balance brought to him that he may issue a receipt to that effect and attach such receipt to the payment voucher showing that the amount set for such expenditure was not fully exhausted.[ Exhibit D3, E11]
58. Investigation reveals Dr. LUCIANA MARUMA
to be a Board Member of Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority and that she was invited to attend the Board Meeting on 13th December 2007 but she could not attend due to circumstances beyond her control [Exhibit C1, E20, E12].
59. Investigation reveals that DR Maruma has
been attending Board Meetings and it has been a tendency that at the closure of the meeting they sign to take their sitting allowances of which the chairman gets 500,000/= and the rest 400,000/= shillings each. [Exhibit E20, C1, E12].
60. Investigation reveals that sitting allowance payments are done at the closure of the Board Meeting because allowance is for participation of members, and that you cant be paid if you havent attended the Board Meeting [Exhibit C1, E12].
61. Investigation reveals that Dr. Maruma was
not paid 400,000/= shillings which was supposed to be paid to her if she could have attended because she didnt attend the Board meeting due to circumstances beyond her control[Exhibit C1, E20, E12].
62. Board Meeting Records shows that Board
members who attended the 13th December 2007 meeting were Paul Chikira as the Chairmam, Issa Ossena, Samwel Moshi, Frederick Monyo, Amina Mbarouk, Bernedeta Kinabo and Baltazar Njau.[Exhibits E23, E12].
63. Board Meeting Records shows that Board
members who didnt attend the 13th December 2007 meeting were three and these are Anthony Kasonta, Prof. Suleman Chambo, and Dr. Luciana Maruma. [Exhibits E23, E12]
64. In the opening remarks Mr. Chairman gave
information to the effect that Dr. Luciana Maruma wont be in the meeting because she was admitted at the KCMC Referral Hospital for major operation on 14th December 2007. [Exhibits E23, E12]
65. Again In the opening remarks Mr. Chairman
gave information to the effect that Prof. Suleman Chambo wont be in the meeting because he has traveled to Dar-Es-Salaam for official duties. [Exhibits E23, E12]
66. Investigation reveals that the main
business in the 13th December 2007 meeting was to deliberate issues pertaining to Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority financial statements for the period ended 30th December 2007[Exhibits E23, E12].
67. Investigation reveals Christine Mkamba to
be the Internal Auditor of Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority since 2006, and that her responsibilities are inter-alia making sure that procedures pertaining to expenditure at Moshi Urban Water And Sewerage Authority [MUWSA] are adhered [Exhibit C4].
68. Comments from the Internal Auditor are
That, she has the knowledge of the EWURA meeting on 13th September 2007, and that basing on the payment voucher number 0016454, Rehema Nelson ought to have retired 400,000/= shillings because of non attendance of one board member.[ Exhibit C4, E2, D1].
69. Investigation reveals that as a matter of
procedure Rehema Nelson ought to have issued a receipt acknowledging revenue of 400,000/= shillings and bank the money immediately on the following day.[ Exhibit C4, D1, E2].
70. Internal Auditors comments are that,
looking on the payment voucher and its attachments, it is evident that there is no Revenue Receipt to show that the 400,000/= shillings were retired by Rehema Nelson. [Exhibit C4, D1, E2].
71. Comments from the Internal Auditor are
That, she has the knowledge of the meeting on 12th December 2007, and that basing on the payment voucher number 00017017, Samwel Millu ought to have retired 400,000/= shillings because of non attendance of one board member.[ Exhibit C4, D3, E11].
72. Investigation reveals that as a matter of
procedure Samwel Millu ought to have issued a receipt acknowledging revenue of 400,000/= shillings and bank the money immediately on the following day.[ Exhibit C4, D3, E11].
73. Internal Auditors comments are that,
looking on the payment voucher number 00017017 and its attachments, it is evident that there is no Revenue Receipt to show that the 400,000/= shillings were retired by Samwel Millu [Exhibit C4, D3, E11].
74. Comments from the Internal Auditor are
that, she has the knowledge of the meeting on 13th December 2007, and that basing on the payment voucher number 00017018, Witness Shoo ought to have retired 1,200,000/= shillings because of non attendance of three board members.[ Exhibit C4, D2, E12].
75. Investigation reveals that as a matter of
Procedure Witness Shoo ought to have issued a receipt acknowledging revenue of 1,200,000/= shillings and bank the money immediately on the following day.[ Exhibit C4, D2, E12].
76. Internal Auditors comments are that,
looking on the payment voucher number 00017018 and its attachments, it is evident that there is no Revenue Receipt to show that the 1,200,000/= shillings were retired by Witness Shoo [Exhibit C4, D2, E12].
77. Investigation reveals Financial Regulation
of Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority to speak on Cash and Banking; the same demands cash collection/cash revenue to be banked before spending and that payments documents must to be prepared first before spending.[Exhibit C4].
78. Comments from the Internal Auditor are
that, payment voucher number 00017018, 00017017 and 0016454 were prepared after their respective meetings i.e. 13th December 2007, 12th December 2007 and 13th September 2007, and that alone is contrary to financial regulation.[ Exhibit C4, E12, E11, E2].
78. Investigation reveals a thorough internal
Auditing to have been done and the results of such audit was that payments vouchers missing supporting documents and attachments amounted to 197,563,201.71/= shillings [Exhibit C4, E1].
79. Investigation reveals; when further
scrutiny was conducted in relation to auditing, it came to be known that payment voucher number 0016454 authorized on 14th September 2007 missed justification of 400,000/= shillings, as the same was to be paid to a board member but no payee signature and no retirement attachment. [Exhibit C4, D1, E1]
80. Investigation reveals; when further
scrutiny was conducted in relation to auditing, it came to be known that payment voucher number 17017 authorized on 12th December 2007 missed justification of 400,000/= shillings, as the same was to be paid to a board member but no payee signature and no retirement attachment. [Exhibit C4, D3, E1]
81. Investigation reveals; when further
scrutiny was conducted in relation to auditing, it came to be known that payment voucher number 17018 authorized on 17th December 2007 missed justification of 1,200,000/= shillings, as the same was to be paid to a board member but no payee signature and no retirement attachment. [Exhibit C4, D2, E1]
OPINION AND RECCOMMENDATION
Having gone through statements and documents all together it is the opinion of this investigation that the suspects above be charged with sections shown and analyzed bellow in the alternative.
SECTION 22: USING DOCUMENTS INTENDED TO MISLEAD PRINCIPAL; Section 22 of the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Act provides;
A person who knowingly gives to any agent, or an agent knowingly uses with intent to deceive, or defraud his principal, any receipt, account or other document such as a voucher, a profoma invoice, an electronically generated data, minute sheet relating to his principals affairs or business, and which contains any statement which is false or erroneous or defective in any material particular, and which to is knowledge is intended to mislead the principal, commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding seven million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both.
Section 22 of the Act has two deferent scenarios. The first one is that which prohibits an Agent using the bellow mentioned documents to deceive his principal. The second is that which prohibits an ordinary person [any person] who gives an Agent of the principal the bellow mentioned documents so that when the agent uses them they may mislead the principal in his affairs or business.
In the first scenario the law prohibits a person called an Agent [Employee of the principal] using documents to mislead/deceive or to defraud the principal; such documents which the Agent is prohibited to use them with such evil intentions are;
Any receipts, Account, or other documents such as a voucher, a proforma Invoice, electronically generated data or a minute sheet.
The Agent is prohibited by the law in using such documents if such documents [the above mentioned documents] contain any statement which is false, erroneous, or defective in any material particular and which to [his] the Agents knowledge is intended to mislead the Principal in his affairs or business.
As it has already been pointed out that, the second scenario is that which prohibits an ordinary person [any person] who gives an Agent the above mentioned documents so that, when the agent uses them they may mislead his principal in his affairs or business.
In the second scenario, the law prohibits any ordinary person [not in the employment of the principal] who with evil intentions gives an Agent documents prohibited above so that when the Agent uses them the principal may be mislead in his affairs or business. Such documents which an ordinary person is prohibited to give to an Agent with such evil intentions are;
Any receipts, Account, or other documents such as a voucher, a proforma Invoice, Electronically generated data or a minute sheet.
Here an ordinary person is prohibited by the law in giving such prohibited documents to the agent if such documents [the above mentioned documents] contain any statement which is false, erroneous, or defective in any material particular and which to his knowledge[such ordinary person] is intended to mislead the Principal in his affairs or business.
SECTION 28: EMBLEZLEMENT
A person being a public official who dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public official or allows any other person to do so, commits an offence, and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding ten million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or to both.
SECTION 31: ABUSE OF POSITION
Section 31 of the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Act provides;
Any person who intentionally abuses his position in the performance or failure to perform an act, in violation of law, in the discharge of his function or use of position for purpose of obtaining an undue advantage for himself or for another person or entity, commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding five million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both.
The section provides for more than two scenarios and the first one is;
Any person who intentionally abuses his position in the performance or failure to perform an act, in violation of law, in the discharge of his functions, commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding five million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both.
The section also provides for the second scenarios as shown here under;
Any person who uses his position for the purpose of obtaining an undue advantage for himself or for another person or entity commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding five millions shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three year or to both.
The word or fixed between his function and use of position connotes a meaning that one act can be done in the alternative of another and that there are more than one offence which subject of the section may commit.
The subject of the section may either abuse his position when performing duties (first offence), or failing to perform an act (second offence), or may abuse his position by doing in violation of law (as the third offence), in the discharge of his functions, or the subject of the section may use his position for purposes of obtaining an undue advantage (fourth offence) for himself or for another person or entity.
My understanding [though I remain to be corrected] is that Section 31 of the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Act ought to be read in that conception and that combining the sentences evasively without their alternatives as the word or and coma connotes, lead to misconception of the section and hence miscarriage of justice.
Section 31 of the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Act, ought to have been drafted into four sub-section to bring a sense of more than two scenarios i.e. 31(1),(2),(3) and (4) or 31(a),(b),(c) and (d) depending on which sounds good. Section 31(1) or (a) ought to have been drafted as here bellow;
That; Any person who intentionally,
(1) Abuses his position in the Performance Of his duties generally or
(2) Fails to perform an act which he is Ordinarily bound to do, or
(3) Does an act in violation of law,
Or
(4) Uses his position for purposes
Of obtaining an undue advantage
In the discharge of his functions, commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding five million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both. It is so opined because in statutory interpretation words or and coma have the same meaning.
Section 31(2) or (b) ought to have been drafted or appear as follows;
Any person, who uses his position for the purpose of obtaining an undue advantage for himself or for another person or entity, commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding five million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both.
In my opinion, this was the wisdom behind the parliament when enacting the law particularly section 31 of the Act. That is, When one part of the provision Prohibits Public Officials against administrative irregularities when performing duties or failing to perform an act, or acting in violation of law, the other part prohibits Public Officials using their position for purposes of obtaining an undue advantage for themselves (himself) or for another person or entity.
But the emphasis here is that the provision ought to have been drafted into four subsections for an ordinary man to digest the provision. Therefore it is not necessary for sub-section (1), (2), and (3) to establish the gaining of undue advantage but just to establish an act of failing to perform an act which the suspect is/was ordinarily bound to do, or doing an act but in violation of law, or abusing the position generally as defined in legal dictionaries. Bryan A. Garner in the blacks law dictionary eighth edition defines the word abuse to mean damaging a thing; to depart from legal or reasonable use in dealing with a person or thing; or to misuse;
Very important thing here is that, it is not necessary that the advantage be received by the official for himself but the same can also be received for another person or entity or other people may receive the advantage through the position of the official. The interpretation here is that the official may not necessarily enjoy the advantage, but through his position somebody else or entity enjoys the advantage.
SECTION 32: CONSPIRACY
Any person who conspires with another person to commit an offence under this act commits a like offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding five million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both.
SECTION 317; FRAUDULENT ACCOUNTING BY CLERK;
Section 317 of the Penal Code, Cap 16 creates the offence of fraudulent accounting by clerk;
Any person who, being a clerk or servant or being employed or acting in the capacity or a clerk or servant, does any of the following acts with intent to defraud
(a) destroys, alters, mutilates or
falsifies any book, document, valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has been received by him on account of his employer, or any entry in any such book, document or account or is privy to that act;
(b) Makes or is privy to making any false entry in a book, document or account; or;
(c) Omits or is privy to omitting any material particular from any such book, document or account;
is guilty of an offence and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years.
SECTION 318; FALSE ACCOUNTING BY PUBLIC OFFICER
Section 318 of the Penal Code, Cap 16 creates the offence of false accounting by public officer.
Any person who, being an officer charged with the receipt, custody or management of any part of the public revenue or property, knowingly furnishes any false statement or return of any money or property received by him or entrusted to his care, or of any balance of money or property in his possession or under his control, is guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for seven years.
The law provides that the subject must be an officer charged with the receipt any part of the public revenue or public property. He should also be charged with the custody of any part of the public revenue or property. In the alternative He should also be charged with the management of any part of the public revenue or property. Such officer must furnish either statements or return of any money received by him or entrusted to his care.
Such officer must furnish either statements or return of any property received by him or entrusted to his care. Such officer must furnish either statements or return of any balance of money or property in his possession or under his control. Very important thing is that when furnishing such statements or return he must do knowingly that the contents of such statements or returns are false;
The law is silent as to whether investigators should prove the question as to whom the returns or statements should be furnished. The law is also silent on whether the subject must gain anything as a result of his furnishing false statements or returns. With this section the act of just furnishing false statements or returns relaying to money, property or their balance is an offence.
Any person who, being an officer charged with the receipt, custody or management of any part of the public revenue or property, knowingly furnishes any
SECTION 122; FALSE INFORMATION TO PERSON EMPLOYED IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE;
Section 122 of the Penal Code, Cape 16 creates the offence of false information to person employed in the public service;
Whoever gives to any person employed in the public service any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause that person
(a) to do or omit anything which that person ought not to do or omit, if the true state of facts respecting which the information is given were known to him; or
(b) to use the lawful power of that person to the injury or annoyance of any person,
Shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to imprisonment for six months or to a fine of one thousand shillings or to both the fine and imprisonment.
The section prohibits and protects persons employed in the public service to be cheated by being given information known or believed to be false by the giver of the information, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause the public servant.
(a) to do or omit anything which the public servant ought not to do or omit, if the true state of facts respecting which the information is given were known to him; or
(b) to use the lawful power of the public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person,
SECTION 95; FALSE CLAIMS BY OFFICIALS;
Section 95 of the Penal Code, Cape 16 creates the offence false claims by officials;
Any person who, being employed in the public service in such a capacity as to require him or to enable him to furnish returns or statements touching any sum payable or claimed to be payable to himself or to any other person, or touching any other matter required to be certified for the purpose of any payment of money or delivery of goods to be made to any person, makes a return or statement touching any such matter which is, to his knowledge, false in any material particular, is guilty of an offence.
If the section is to be split into parts for easy analysis then its tone would have sound this way.
Any person who, being employed in the public service in;
i) such a capacity as to require him or enable him to furnish returns or statements touching any sum payable or claimed to be payable to himself or to any other person;
ii) such a capacity as to require him or enable him to furnish returns or statements touching any other matter required to be certified for the purpose of any payment of money;
iii) such a capacity as to require him enable him to furnish returns or statements touching any other matter required to be certified for the purpose of delivery of goods to be made to any person,
iv) such a capacity as to require him or enable him to furnish returns or statements touching any sum payable or claimed to be payable to himself or to any other person;
Makes a return or statement touching any such matter which is, to his knowledge, false in any material particular, is guilty of an offence.
SECTION 96: ABUSE OF OFFICE
Section 96 of the Penal Code, Cape 16 creates the offence Abuse of office;
(1) Any person who, being employed in the
Public service does or directs to be done in abuse of the authority of his office, any arbitrary act prejudicial to the rights of another is guilty of an offence.
(2) If the act done or directed to be done is for purposes of gain, a person convicted of an offence contrary to subsection (1) is liable to imprisonment for three years.
(3) A prosecution for an offence under this section shall not be instituted except by or with the sanction of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
EXHIBITS LIST
E1 INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT
E2 PAYMENT VOUCHER NUMBER 0016454
E3 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Ndeshukurwa Sumari)
E4 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Suleman Chambo)
E5 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Benedeta Kinabo)
E6 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Amina Mbarouk)
E7 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Samwel Moshi)
E8 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Luciana Maruma)
E9 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Frederick Monyo)
E10 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Paul Chikira)
E11 PAYMENT VOUCHER NUMBER 00017017
E12 PAYMENT VOUCHER NUMBER 00017018
E13 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Paul Chikira)
E14 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Suleman Chambo)
E15 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Amina Mbarouk)
E16 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Benedeta Kinabo)
E17 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Frederick Monyo)
E18 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Baltazar Njau)
E19 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Samwel Moshi)
E20 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Luciana Maruma)
E21 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Paul Chikira)
E22 BOARD MEETING MINUTES ON 12/12/2007
E23 BOARD MEETING MINUTES ON 13/12/2007
E24 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Suleman Chambo)
Ifuatayo ni maendeleo ya uchunguzi wa ubadhirifu MUWSA
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION REPORT
FILE: PCCB/KIL/ENQ/08/2008
SUSPECTS
1) NAME : REHEMA NELSON [D1]
TITLE : ACCOUNTS TECHNICIAN
MOSHI URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY,
ADRESS : 1001 MOSHI
2) NAME : WITNESS SHOO [D2]
TITLE : ACCOUNTS TECHNICIAN
MOSHI URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY,
ADRESS : 1001 MOSHI
3) NAME : SAMWEL M. MILLU [D3]
TITLE : ACCOUNTS TECHNICIAN
MOSHI URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY,
ADRESS : 1001 MOSHI
4) NAME : JOYCE MSIRU [D4]
TITLE : FINANCE &ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER,
MOSHI URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY,
ADRESS : 1001 MOSHI.
ALLEGATIONS
EMBEZZLEMENT AND ABUSE OF POSITION CONTRARY TO SECTION 31 AND 30 OF THE PREVENTION AND COMBATING OF CORRUPTION ACT NO. 11 OF 2007.
FIRST CRIME REPORT
On a date not well known a call from anonymous caller invited the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Bureau to investigate the integrity of JOYCE MSIRU. JOYCE MSIRU is the head of Finance & Administration Department in Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority. The anonymous caller alleges JOYCE MSIRU on having a tendency of not retiring Board Meeting sitting allowances but for non attended Board Members. The anonymous caller was not sure as to which offence JOYCE MSIRU might have committed but the source observed her acts as unethical.
INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY
Investigation was conducted and the main purpose was to prove or disprove the above allegation. This Investigation was to adopt various methodology including taking or collecting documents by search and seizure, taking statements from various staff of Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority including statements of the four suspects Rehema Nelson, Samwel M. Millu, Witness Shoo and Joyce Msiru and Searching Bank Accounts of the four suspects.
ANALYSIS: WITNESS STATEMENTS
DR. LUCIANA APOLLO MARUMA C1
She is a member of the Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority Board of Directors. She is a Medical Doctor at the Mawenzi Regional Hospital. She remembers to have received an invitation letter on 05th December 2007 to attend the Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority Board Meeting on 13th December 2007.
Maruma says she could not attend such Board meeting on 13th December 2007 due to circumstances beyond human control and that she was attending major operation at the KCMC Referral Hospital. She says Board allowance payments are made to a member who has attended a particular Board Meeting and that no payment is made a member who has not attended a meeting.
She says because of that she was not paid seating allowance because she didnt attend the meeting and that if she could have attended the meeting her entitlement as a Board member is 400000/=. She added that if you carefully look on the payroll you will not be able to see a signature against her name.
NDESHUKURWA A. SUMARI [C2]
She was a member of the Board of Directors of Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority from 2007 to 2007. She was the Kilimanjaro Regional Administrative Secretary from 2004 to 28th October 2007 when she officially retired from the public service. She could not have attended the Boards meeting on 13th December 2007 because she had already retired from the Public Service on 28th October 2007. If it was necessary to attend the meeting then her successor Hilda Gondwe [RAS] was the one to attend.
Before retirement she used to attend Boards meetings and usually sitting allowances were being paid after the closing remarks from the chairman and Joyce Msiru were the one who paid us the said allowance of which the rate was 400,000/= shillings. Because of her non attendance, she expected the amount 400,000/= shillings allocated to her to be taken back to bank via ordinary procedures in accordance with the MUWSA financial Regulations.
PROF. SULEMAN A CHAMBO C3
He is a member of the Board of Directors of Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority. He has the knowledge of the EWURA meeting on 13th September 2007 but he didnt attend the meeting because of conflict of interest. If he could/would have attended the meeting then his entitlement according to Payment Voucher [No 00016454] is 400,000/= shillings as sitting allowance.
He has the knowledge of the Board meeting on 13th December 2007 but he couldnt attend the meeting. Basing on documents [PV No.00017018] Ndeshukurwa Sumari, Dr. Luciana Maruma, and myself didnt attend the meeting. In our togetherness we were supposed to be paid 1,200,000/= shillings as sitting allowance i.e. 400,000/= each.
Because of our non attendance, I expected the amount 1,200,000/= shillings allocated to three of us to be taken back to bank on the spot via ordinary procedures in accordance with the MUWSA financial Regulations. He has the knowledge of the Board meeting on 12th December 2007 but he couldnt attend the meeting. If he could/would have attended the meeting then his entitlement according to Payment Voucher [No 00017017] is 400,000/= shillings as sitting allowance.
CHRISTINE MKAMBA C4
She is the internal auditor of Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority. she has the knowledge of the EWURA meeting on 13th September 2007, and that basing on the payment voucher number 0016454, Rehema Nelson ought to have retired 400,000/= shillings because of non attendance of one board member.
The procedure was that Rehema Nelson ought to have issued a receipt acknowledging revenue of 400,000/= shillings and bank the money immediately on the following day. Her comments are that, looking on the payment voucher and its attachments, it is evident that there is no Revenue Receipt attached to the payment voucher to show that the 400,000/= shillings were retired by Rehema Nelson.
she has the knowledge of the meeting on 12th December 2007, and that basing on the payment voucher number 00017017, Samwel Millu ought to have retired 400,000/= shillings because of non attendance of one board member. As a matter of procedure Samwel Millu ought to have issued a receipt acknowledging revenue of 400,000/= shillings and bank the money immediately on the following day. Internal Auditors comments are that, looking on the payment voucher number 00017017 and its attachments, it is evident that there is no Revenue Receipt attached to the payment voucher showing that the 400,000/= shillings were retired by Samwel Millu.
She has the knowledge of the meeting on 13th December 2007, and that basing on the payment voucher number 00017018, Witness Shoo ought to have retired 1,200,000/= shillings because of non attendance of three board members. As a matter of procedure Witness Shoo ought to have issued a receipt acknowledging revenue of 1,200,000/= shillings and bank the money immediately on the following day. She said looking on the payment voucher number 00017018 and its attachments, it is evident that there is no Revenue Receipt attached to the payment voucher to show that 1,200,000/= shillings were retired by Witness Shoo. She said; Financial Regulation of Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority to speaks on Cash and Banking; the same demands cash collection/cash revenue to be banked before spending and that payments documents must to be prepared first before spending.
Looking on documents it seems that, payment voucher number 00017018, 00017017 and 0016454 and cheques number 586879, 586878 and 586317 were prepared after their respective meetings were already concluded i.e. 13th December 2007, 12th December 2007 and 13th September 2007, and that alone is contrary to financial regulations. She said if it was necessary to draw the money after the conclusion of those meetings then, the amount from Bank was supposed to be less than the drawn amount because of the non attended board members i.e. 1,200,000/=, 400,000/= and 400,000/=.
ISSA YUSUPH OSENA C5
He is the head of Technical department at MUWSA. Having shown Payment Voucher Number 00017017 he admitted to have knowledge of it as it bears his signature and that he was the one who authorized it to facilitate the finance and audit committee meeting. By the time he was the acting Managing Director. Basing on the Payment Voucher, Samwel Millu was paid 2,520,000/= shillings to facilitate the same.
He authorized the payment on 17 December 2007. Samwel Millu prepared the Payment Voucher on 13 December 2007 while the meeting or the committee sat on 12 December 2007. Financial regulation insists on preparing payment document before expenditure and not after spending. As a matter of procedure payment document for the committee on 12 December 2007 ought to have been prepared before and take money from bank before 12 December 2007.
The committee meeting was budgeted and there was no any reason for preparing the payment documents after the committee meeting On 12 December 2007 and after the closure of the meeting members were paid allowance by using day collections of such a date. Financial regulation requires collection to be deposited/banked immediately before any spending. The question as to why the meeting was financed by day collection he thinks accounts people should respond to the question because he is sure that they know that any expenses or expenditure must be paid by cheque.
Prof. Suleman chambo didnt attend the meeting on 12 December 2007 and if would have attend his entitlement was 400,000/= as sitting allowance. Procedure demands if there is any balance resulting from non-attendance of a board member then such a balance is taken back to the cashier and issue revenue receipt voucher but having a look at the payment voucher and its supporting documents it seems the money 400,000/= was not retired. He thought samwel millu should be held responsible to explain where the money is.
He also has knowledge of the Board Meeting on 13 December 2007. Ndeshukurwa Sumari, Dr. Luciana Maruma and prof. Suleiman Chambo didnt attend the meeting and they were supposed to be paid 1,200,000/= shillings in total [400,000/= each]. The meeting was budgeted and because of the non attendance of the three Board Members then 1,200,000/= ought to have been retired.
Having seen the Payment Voucher Number 00017018 and its supporting documents he concluded to say there was no retirement made after the meeting on 13 December 2007. He thought that witness Shoo should be held responsible to disclose where the money is
ANALYSIS: SUSPECTS STATEMENTS
REHEMA NELSON MINJA D1
she is Assistant Accountant or rather Accounts Technician at Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority and she was the one who took from Bank a sum of shillings 4,420,000/= allocated or set aside
to facilitate sitting allowance payments to Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority Board Members who attended Board Meeting on 13th September 2007. She is the one who prepared payment voucher no. 0016454 and cheque no. 586317. Having taken such amount from Bank she was instructed to pack them in envelops and handle them to Joyce Msiru that she may execute payments to Board Members.
She says according to the Payroll board members who signed to take seating allowances on that day [13th September] after attending the EWURA meeting were eleven members only [11], though they ought to be twelve [12]. She says according to the Payroll board members who didnt sign to take the allowance were Prof. Chambo Suleman who if he could have attended then his entitlement were shillings 400,000/=.
He says, once it happens that the amount set aside for Board Meetings is not exhausted then the procedure is that the balance is brought back to the cashier and the same issues a receipt of the same amount and then she attach the receipt to the payment voucher showing that the amount set aside for Board Members was not exhausted.
Having being shown the payment voucher number 00017018 she could not see any receipt attached to the effect that there was any balance on 13th September 2007 meeting. She says until today she has not seen any amount of money brought back to her as balance remaining from the meeting on 13th September 2007.
WITNESS JULIUS SHOO D2
she is Assistant Accountant or rather Accounts Technician at Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority and she was the one who took from Bank a sum of shillings 4,420,000/= allocated or set aside
to facilitate sitting allowance payments to Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority Board Members. She is the one who prepared payment voucher no. 00017018 and cheque no. 586879.
Having taken such amount from Bank she was instructed to pack them in envelops and handle them to Joyce Msiru that she may excecute payments to Board Members. She says according to the Payroll, board members who signed to take seating allowances on that day were Paul Chikira shilings 500,000/= Issa Ossena shilings 400,000/= Frederick Monyo shilings 400,000/=, Baltazal Njau shilingi 400,000/=, Samwel Moshi shilings 400,000/=, Benedeta Kinabo shilings 400,000/=, Amina Mbarok shilings 400,000/=, John Mchimbi shilings 250,000/= and Joyce Msiru shilings 250,000/=.
She says according to the Payroll board members who didnt sign to take the allowance were Prof. Chambo Suleman shilings 400,000/=, Dr Luciana Maruma shilings 400,000/= and Ndeshukurwa Sumari shilings 400000/=. In total they were supposed to be paid a sum of 1,200,000/= if they could have attended the meeting on 13th December 2007.
He says, once it happens that the amount set aside for Board Meetings is not exhausted then the balance is brought back to the cashier and the same issues a receipt of the same amount and then she attach the receipt to the payment voucher showing that the amount set aside for Board Members was not exhausted. Having being shown the payment voucher no. 00017018 she could not see any receipt attached to the effect that there was any balance on13th December 2007.
SAMWELI M. MILLU D3.
He is Assistant Accountant or rather Accounts Technician at Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority and he was the one who took from Bank a sum of shillings 2,520,000/= allocated or set aside to facilitate sitting allowance payments to Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority finance & Auditing Committee members. He is the one who prepared payment voucher number 00017017, 00017018 and 0016454 and cheque no. 586878 of 17 December 2007 after their meetings were already concluded days before the dates of preparing payment vouchers.
He says that according to the committee members payroll the meeting on 12th Dec 2007 had seven members only and these are Amina Mburuku [allowance paid] 400,000/= Issa Osena [allowance paid 400,000/=] Baltazar Njau [allowance paid 400,000/=] Benadeta Kinabo [allowance paid 400,000/=] John Nchimbu [allowance paid 250,000/=] Joyce Msiru [allowance paid 250,000/=] na Christina Mkamba [allowance paid 250,000/=]. He says that according to the committee members payroll Prof. Suleman Chambo dint ettend the meeting on 12th Dec 2007 and that if he could have attended the meeting he was entitled to sing the taking of 400,000/= but the allowance was not paid to him because he didnt attend the meeting.
JOYCE MSIRU D4
She is the finance and administration manager at MUWSA. She says in 13 September 2007 there was EWURA meeting and MUWSA Board Members attended. Prof. Suleiman Chambo as a board member didnt attend the meeting on 13 September 2007. He was entitled to sitting allowance of 400,000/= if he could have participated. If there is any balance of money resulting from the non-attendance of a board member the money is taken back to cashier who in return issues a revenue receipt voucher and takes them to bank as collection of the day.
Having shown payment voucher no 0016454 and its supporting documents she confesses that the balance was not retired after the meeting and instead thereof she confesses to have remained with the money and went to England. She left for England on 13 September 2007 and stayed there until 6 November 2007. However she is not sure whether retirement was done after her arrival. She admits that financial regulation demands retirement to be done within 14 days and Rehema was the one supposed to retire as the payment voucher bears her name. She admits the meeting to be financed by day collection. She admits it to be irregularity to finance any expenditure by taking money from day collection. Day collection must be taken to bank immediately and any spending is by cheque. She admits that even after coming back from England on 6th November 2007 she didnt surrender the balance to the cashier for retirement.
She also admits to remain with the balance of 400,000/= shillings as a result of non-attended board member prof. Suleman Chambo on 12 December, 2007. Having shown payment voucher No 00017017 and its supporting documents she admits the money to have not been retired. She admits that the meeting on 12 December, 2007 was financed by day collection of which financial regulation does not allow.
She admits the payment voucher to finance the meeting on 12th December 2007 was authorized on 17th Dec 2007 while the meeting finances came from day collection on 12th December, 2007. However she alleges to have surrendered the balance of 400,000/= to Anna Maurice on 14th December 2007 and that she was supposed to retire them immediately. She admitted to be irregularly to remain with office money for more than 14 days without justification.
She admits to have knowledge of the board meeting on 13th December 2007 and that Ndeshikurwa Sumari, Dr. Luciana Maruma and Prof. Suleman Chambo didnt attend the meeting. They were to be paid 1,200,000/= in total if they could have attended. She alleges to have surrendered the balance of 1,200,000/= resulting from the non-attended board members to Anna Maurice on 14 December 2007 that she may retire, but she leaned later that there was no retirement made by Anna Maurice. She admitted all the three meeting to have been budgeted before and that it was contrary to financial regulation to finance the meeting by using day collection as it was done.
INVESTIGATION FINDINGS
Having conducted Investigation bellow were and shall remain to be the findings;
1. Investigation reveals Moshi Urban Water
Supply & Sewerage Authority [simply referred to as MUWSA] to have been established under the Water Utilization [Control and Regulation] Act Cap 331 and Water Works Act, Cap 272as one of the Regional Urban Water authorities declared by the Minister for Water and livestock Development.
2. The authority has been declared by the
Minister for Water and livestock Development to be autonomous Urban Water Supply & Sewerage Authority and the same came into operation on 1st January 1998. [Cap. 331 and Cap 272]
3. The authority is categorized under Group
[A] and that the same is obliged to operate according to Waterworks Ordinance, Waterworks Rules, Waterworks Regulations and Operation Guidelines which requires the authority to have Financial Regulations. [Cap 331 and Cap 272]
4. The law [Cap 331 and Cap 272] reveal the
Overall Powers of the authority to be vested in the Board of Directors, while the day to day management is under the direction of the Managing Director [Cap 331 and Cap 272]
5. Documents reveal JOYCE MSIRU to have been permanently employed by Moshi Urban Water Supply And Sewerage Authority in the Department of Finance and Administration as finance and Administrative Manager and that until to date she is still the holder of such post[ exhibits D4].
6. Documents reveal Rehema Nelson to
have been permanently employed by Moshi Urban Water Supply And Sewerage Authority in the Department of Finance and Administration on 14 August 2006 with effect from 1st July 06; Investigation reveal Rehema Nelson`s confirmation was on 3rd August 2007 with effect from 1st July 2006 [Exhibit D1].
7. Documents reveal that Samwel M. Millu was
employed by Moshi Urban Water Supply And Sewerage Authority on 19th April 2005 on Permanent terms as Accounts Technician III, in the Department of Finance and Administration; Documents reveal that on 24th July 2006 Samwel M. Millu was confirmed in his employment with effect from 19th April 2006 [Exhibit D3];
8. Documents reveal Witness Shoo to
have been permanently employed by Moshi Urban Water And Supply & Sewerage Authority as accounts Technician in the department of finance and Administration on 08th July 2004, with effect from 1st July 2004 and was confirmed on 17th November 2005. [Exhibit D2]
9. Investigation reveals that on 14th
September 2007 Rehema Nelson, accounts personal was given a sum of 4,420,000/= to facilitate special allowance payment to the District Commission Hon. Mussa Samizi while officiating EWURA Public Inquiry on MUWASA Water Tariff Raising Request on 13th September 2007 [Exhibit D1, E2]
10. Investigation revels that the amount
allocated to the District Commissioner was 200,000/= as officiating allowance of EWURA Public Inquiry on MUWSA Water Tariff Raising Request on 13th September 2007. [Exhibit D1, E2]
11. Investigation reveals that other
expenditure attached to 4,420,000/= was special allowance to Board Members who attended the EWURA Public Inquiry on MUWSA Water Tariff Raising Request on 13th September 2007. [Exhibit D1, E2]
12. Investigation reveals Rehema Neslon to
have been given 4,420,000/= for the above mentioned expenditure through payment voucher No 0016454 and cheque No. 586317 [Exhibit D1, E2]
13. Investigation reveals MUWSA to have set
aside a sum 3,620,000/= as special allowance to nine Board Members whom Moshi Urban Water Supply And Sewerage Authority expected them to attend the EWURA Public Inquiry on MUWSA Water Tariff Raising Request on 13th September 2007. [Exhibit E2, E4, E3, E5, E6, E7, E8, E9, E10, D1]
14. Documents reveal that, in 2007 Moshi
Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority Board Members were Mr. Paul O. Chikira, Anthony S. Kasota, Mrs Ndeshukurwa Sumari, Prof. suleman A. Chambo, Benadeta Kinabo, Mrs Amina Mbaronk, Samwel N. Moshi, Dr Aliciana A. Maruma and Hon. Frederick E. Monyo. [Exhibit E2, E4, E3, E5, E6, E7, E8, E9, E10, D1]
15. Documents reveal that prof. chambo
suleman was SERVED a short notice to attend the so called EWURA Public Inquiry on MUWSA Water Tariff Raising Request on13th September 2007 via letter marked muwsa/ms/8/vol.III/32. [E4]
16. Documents reveal that prof. Suleiman A.
Chambo as a Board Member [though he was served with an invitation letter] didnt attend the EWURA Public Inquiry on MUWSA Water Tariff Raising Request on 13th September 2007. [Exhibit E2, E4]
17. Documents reveal; the payment voucher used
to pay Rehema Nelson a sum of 4,420,000/= as special allowance to Board Members was prepared, checked, approved and authorized on 14/09/2007 while payments to board members were done on 13th September 2007. [Exhibit E2]
18. Documents reveal Eng. Issa osena, Mrs
Joyce Msira and John Nchimbi to have participated the Boad Meeting on 13th September 2007 and that they were paid a sum of 250,000/= each of them. [Exhibit E2].
19 Documents reveal payments to Board
Members to have been done on 13th September 2007 when the meeting was executed, While payment voucher and its authorization was done on 14th September 2007 [Exhibit E2]
20. Investigation reveals or finds no
document supporting the recovery of 400,000/= Tsh for non attendance of prof. Suleman A. Chambo who didnt attend the EWURA Public Inquiry on MUWSA Water Tariff Raising Request on 13th September 2007. [Exhibit E2, D1, C4, C3]
21. Investigation reveals Paul O. Chikira
Frederick F. Monyo, Luciana A. Maruma, Samwel N. Moshi, Amina Mbaronk, Benadeta Kinabo, Prof. Suleiman A. Chambo and Ndeshukurwa A. Sumari to have been invited to attend the EWURA Public Inquiry on MUWSA Water Tariff Raising Request on 13th September 2007. [E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7, E8, E9 and E10]
22. Investigation reveals Moshi Urban Water &
Sewerage Authority to have no Board Minutes Records on the meeting of 13th September 2007 as it was the meeting in the control of Energy and Water Utility Regulatory Authority [simply referred to as EWURA].
23. It follows therefore that because there
was no Board Minutes Records on such a date then the only document to show who actually attended the meeting or not is the Board Members Pay-Roll where each member had to sign for seating allowance[E2]
24. Documents reveal that on 17th December 2007
Samwel Millu was paid a sum of 2,520,000 to facilitate sitting allowance payments to Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority finance & Auditing Committee meeting held on 12th December 2007[Exhibit E11, D3]
25. Documents reveal Samwel Millu was paid a
sum of Tsh 2,252,000/= on 17th December 2007 through payment voucher No. 00017017 and cheque No. 586878 to facilitate the payments to committee members who sat on 12th December 2007 (Exhibit D3, E11).
26. Documents reveal the payment voucher to
have been prepared, checked on 13th December 2007, approved and authorized on 17th December 2007 , and that the money was received by Samwel Millu on the same 17th December 2007.[ Exhibit D3, E11]
27. Investigation finds no reasons assigned
as to why committee members to be paid on 12th December 2007 followed by the preparation and checking of the PV on 13th December 2007 while their approval and authorization was done on 17th December 2007 [Exhibit D3, E11]
28. Documents reveal Mrs Amina Mbaronk Eng.
Issa Osena, Eng Baltazari E. Njau and Benadeta Kinabo to have attended the Moshi Urban Water Supply And Sewerage Authority Finance & Auditing Committee held on 12th December 2007, with exception of Prof. Suleman A. Chambo who didnt attend the committee meeting (Exhibit D3, E11, E22).
29. Documents reveals that Prof. Chambo was
given a notice to attend the meeting on 12th Dec 2007 via letter marked muwsa/ms/8/vol.III/48 and due to reason best known to himself he could not attend.[ Exhibit E14,E22]
30. Documents reveal other members who
Participated the Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority Finance & Auditing Committee held on 12th December 2007, to be John Nchimbi, Joyce Msiru and Christina Mkamba as heads of departments [Exhibit E11]
31. Documents reveals; Moshi Urban Water
Supply And Sewerage Authority Finance & Auditing Committee members were paid a sum of 400,000/= shillings as sitting allowance while other participating members were paid a sum of Tsh 250,000/= shillings each hence a sum of 2,252,000/= shillings [Exhibit D3, E11]
32. Investigation finds no documents showing
that 400,000/= shillings were recovered by Moshi Urban Water Supply And Sewerage Authority [MUWSA] as a balance for non attended Finance & Auditing Committee member Prof. Suleman A. Chambo. [Exhibit D3, E11, E22]
33. Documents reveal witness shoo to have
been paid a sum of 4,420,000/= shillings through payment voucher No 17018, and cheque No.586879 as funds to facilitate the payment of sitting allowance during Board meeting of Moshi Urban Water Supply And Sewerage Authority (Exhibit D2, E12¬)
34. Documents reveal the Board Meeting to
have sat on 13th December 2007 and a total of 4,020,000/= shillings was prepared or allocated for the payment at a rate of 400,000/= shillings each with exception of 500,000/= shillings to the Board chairman (Exhibit D2, E12)
35. Documents reveals three Board members of
Moshi Urban Water Supply And Sewerage Authority to have not attended the meeting on 13th December 2007 and these are Dr. Luciana A. Maruma, Ndeshukurwa A. Sumari and Prof. Suleiman A. Chambo of which in total they were supposed to be paid a sum of 1,200,000/= shillings if they could have attended. [E12, D2, C1, C2, C3].
36. Investigation reveals that there was no
any invitation to either Ndeshukurwa A. Sumari or Anthony Kasonta to attend the 13th December 2007 Board Meeting but documents reveals invitation or short notice to the meeting was sent to Prof. Suleiman A. Chambo and Dr. Luciana A. Maruma[E20,E24]
37. Board Minutes records reveal that Board
members who didnt attend such a meeting were Anthony Kasonta, Prof. Suleman Chambo, and Dr. Luciana Maruma and that investigation finds no reason as to why there is such a contradiction [E23, E12]
38. Investigation finds no documents showing
recovery of 1,200,000/= shillings as a balance for non attendance of three Board members on 13th December 2007 [Exhibit D2, E12,]
39. Investigation reveals other participating
members to be John Nchimbi and Mrs Joyce Msiru as Moshi Urban Water Supply And Sewerage Authority heads of departments who were paid a sum of Tsh 250,000/= shillings each as sitting allowance of the same. [Exhibit D2, E12,]
40. Documents reveal that, on 05th December
2007 Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority gave a short notice to Board members to attend the so called extra-ordinary Board Meeting on 13th December 2007 to deliberate financial statement for the year ended 30th June 2007. [E13, E14, E15, E16, E17, E18, E29 and E20]
41. Rehema Nelson admits to have been given
the sum of 4,420,000 shillings to facilitate special allowance payment to the District Commission Hon. Mussa Samizi and other Board Members during EWURA Public Inquiry on MUWASA Water Tariff Raising Request on 13 September 2007, [Exhibit D1, E1, E2]
42. Rehema Nelson admits to have been given
the sum of tsh 4,420,000/= shillings for the above mentioned expenditure through payment voucher Number 0016454 and cheque Number 586317 [Exhibit D1, E1, E2,].
43. Investigation reveals that having been
given such an amount, Rehema Nelson was instructed to park them in envelops and finally handled them to JOYCE MSIRU[Finance and Administration Manager] for payments to subjects of such expenditure[Exhibit D1]
44. Investigation reveal that Incase of any
balance remaining as a result of non attendance of any Board Member then the balance was supposed to be returned to her and issue a receipt to that effect and attach such receipt to the payment voucher showing that the amount set for such expenditure was not fully exhausted.[ Exhibit D1]
45. Investigation reveals that there was no
any balance brought back to Rehema Nelson remaining as a result of non attendance of any Board Member for her to issue a receipt to that effect and attach such receipt to the payment voucher showing that the amount set for such expenditure was not fully exhausted[Exhibit D1].
46. Further to that Rehema Nelson adds that
until the time when her statements were being taken, there was no any balance brought to her that she may issue a receipt to that effect and attach such receipt to the payment voucher showing that the amount set for such expenditure was not fully exhausted.[ Exhibit D1]
47. Witness Shoo admits to have been given
the sum of 4,420,000/= shillings to facilitate special allowance payment Board Members during EWURA Public Inquiry on MUWASA Water Tariff Raising Request on 13 September 2007, [Exhibit D2, E12]
48. Witness Shoo admits to have been given
the sum of 4,420,000/= shillings for the above mentioned expenditure through payment voucher No. 00017018 and cheque No. 586879 [Exhibit D2, E12,].
49. Investigation reveals; having been given such an amount, Witness Shoo was instructed to park them in envelops and finally handled them to JOYCE MSIRU [Finance and Administration Manager] for payments to subjects of such expenditure [Exhibit D2, E12, D4].
50. Investigation reveal that Incase of any
balance remaining as a result of non attendance of any Board Member then the balance was supposed to be returned to Witness Shoo and issue a receipt to that effect and attach such receipt to the payment voucher showing that the amount set for such expenditure was not fully exhausted.[ Exhibit D2, D4, E12]
51. Investigation reveals that there was no
any balance brought back to Witness Shoo remaining as a result of non attendance of any Board Member for her to issue a receipt to that effect and attach such receipt to the payment voucher showing that the amount set for such expenditure was not fully exhausted[Exhibit D2, E12, D4].
52. Further to that Witness Shoo adds that
until the time when her statements were being taken, there was no any balance brought to her that she may issue a receipt to that effect and attach such receipt to the payment voucher showing that the amount set for such expenditure was not fully exhausted.[ Exhibit D2]
53. Samwel Millu admits to have been given
the sum of 2,520,000/= shillings to facilitate sitting allowance payments to Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority finance & Auditing Committee meeting held on 12th Dec 2007[Exhibit D3, E11].
54. Samwel Millu admits to have been
Given/Paid the sum of 2,252,000/= shillings for the above mentioned expenditure through payment voucher Number 00017017 and cheque Number 586878 [Exhibit D3, D4, E11].
55. Investigation reveals that Samwel Millu
having been given such an amount, was instructed to park them in envelops and finally handled them to JOYCE MSIRU [Finance and Administration Manager] for payments to subjects of such expenditure[Exhibit D3, D4, E11].
56. Investigation reveals that there was no
any balance brought back to Samwel Millu remaining as a result of non attendance of any Board Member for him to issue a receipt to that effect and attach such receipt to the payment voucher showing that the amount set for such expenditure was not fully exhausted[Exhibit D3, E11, D4].
57. Further to that Samwel Millu adds that
until the time when his statements were being taken, there was no any balance brought to him that he may issue a receipt to that effect and attach such receipt to the payment voucher showing that the amount set for such expenditure was not fully exhausted.[ Exhibit D3, E11]
58. Investigation reveals Dr. LUCIANA MARUMA
to be a Board Member of Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority and that she was invited to attend the Board Meeting on 13th December 2007 but she could not attend due to circumstances beyond her control [Exhibit C1, E20, E12].
59. Investigation reveals that DR Maruma has
been attending Board Meetings and it has been a tendency that at the closure of the meeting they sign to take their sitting allowances of which the chairman gets 500,000/= and the rest 400,000/= shillings each. [Exhibit E20, C1, E12].
60. Investigation reveals that sitting allowance payments are done at the closure of the Board Meeting because allowance is for participation of members, and that you cant be paid if you havent attended the Board Meeting [Exhibit C1, E12].
61. Investigation reveals that Dr. Maruma was
not paid 400,000/= shillings which was supposed to be paid to her if she could have attended because she didnt attend the Board meeting due to circumstances beyond her control[Exhibit C1, E20, E12].
62. Board Meeting Records shows that Board
members who attended the 13th December 2007 meeting were Paul Chikira as the Chairmam, Issa Ossena, Samwel Moshi, Frederick Monyo, Amina Mbarouk, Bernedeta Kinabo and Baltazar Njau.[Exhibits E23, E12].
63. Board Meeting Records shows that Board
members who didnt attend the 13th December 2007 meeting were three and these are Anthony Kasonta, Prof. Suleman Chambo, and Dr. Luciana Maruma. [Exhibits E23, E12]
64. In the opening remarks Mr. Chairman gave
information to the effect that Dr. Luciana Maruma wont be in the meeting because she was admitted at the KCMC Referral Hospital for major operation on 14th December 2007. [Exhibits E23, E12]
65. Again In the opening remarks Mr. Chairman
gave information to the effect that Prof. Suleman Chambo wont be in the meeting because he has traveled to Dar-Es-Salaam for official duties. [Exhibits E23, E12]
66. Investigation reveals that the main
business in the 13th December 2007 meeting was to deliberate issues pertaining to Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority financial statements for the period ended 30th December 2007[Exhibits E23, E12].
67. Investigation reveals Christine Mkamba to
be the Internal Auditor of Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority since 2006, and that her responsibilities are inter-alia making sure that procedures pertaining to expenditure at Moshi Urban Water And Sewerage Authority [MUWSA] are adhered [Exhibit C4].
68. Comments from the Internal Auditor are
That, she has the knowledge of the EWURA meeting on 13th September 2007, and that basing on the payment voucher number 0016454, Rehema Nelson ought to have retired 400,000/= shillings because of non attendance of one board member.[ Exhibit C4, E2, D1].
69. Investigation reveals that as a matter of
procedure Rehema Nelson ought to have issued a receipt acknowledging revenue of 400,000/= shillings and bank the money immediately on the following day.[ Exhibit C4, D1, E2].
70. Internal Auditors comments are that,
looking on the payment voucher and its attachments, it is evident that there is no Revenue Receipt to show that the 400,000/= shillings were retired by Rehema Nelson. [Exhibit C4, D1, E2].
71. Comments from the Internal Auditor are
That, she has the knowledge of the meeting on 12th December 2007, and that basing on the payment voucher number 00017017, Samwel Millu ought to have retired 400,000/= shillings because of non attendance of one board member.[ Exhibit C4, D3, E11].
72. Investigation reveals that as a matter of
procedure Samwel Millu ought to have issued a receipt acknowledging revenue of 400,000/= shillings and bank the money immediately on the following day.[ Exhibit C4, D3, E11].
73. Internal Auditors comments are that,
looking on the payment voucher number 00017017 and its attachments, it is evident that there is no Revenue Receipt to show that the 400,000/= shillings were retired by Samwel Millu [Exhibit C4, D3, E11].
74. Comments from the Internal Auditor are
that, she has the knowledge of the meeting on 13th December 2007, and that basing on the payment voucher number 00017018, Witness Shoo ought to have retired 1,200,000/= shillings because of non attendance of three board members.[ Exhibit C4, D2, E12].
75. Investigation reveals that as a matter of
Procedure Witness Shoo ought to have issued a receipt acknowledging revenue of 1,200,000/= shillings and bank the money immediately on the following day.[ Exhibit C4, D2, E12].
76. Internal Auditors comments are that,
looking on the payment voucher number 00017018 and its attachments, it is evident that there is no Revenue Receipt to show that the 1,200,000/= shillings were retired by Witness Shoo [Exhibit C4, D2, E12].
77. Investigation reveals Financial Regulation
of Moshi Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority to speak on Cash and Banking; the same demands cash collection/cash revenue to be banked before spending and that payments documents must to be prepared first before spending.[Exhibit C4].
78. Comments from the Internal Auditor are
that, payment voucher number 00017018, 00017017 and 0016454 were prepared after their respective meetings i.e. 13th December 2007, 12th December 2007 and 13th September 2007, and that alone is contrary to financial regulation.[ Exhibit C4, E12, E11, E2].
78. Investigation reveals a thorough internal
Auditing to have been done and the results of such audit was that payments vouchers missing supporting documents and attachments amounted to 197,563,201.71/= shillings [Exhibit C4, E1].
79. Investigation reveals; when further
scrutiny was conducted in relation to auditing, it came to be known that payment voucher number 0016454 authorized on 14th September 2007 missed justification of 400,000/= shillings, as the same was to be paid to a board member but no payee signature and no retirement attachment. [Exhibit C4, D1, E1]
80. Investigation reveals; when further
scrutiny was conducted in relation to auditing, it came to be known that payment voucher number 17017 authorized on 12th December 2007 missed justification of 400,000/= shillings, as the same was to be paid to a board member but no payee signature and no retirement attachment. [Exhibit C4, D3, E1]
81. Investigation reveals; when further
scrutiny was conducted in relation to auditing, it came to be known that payment voucher number 17018 authorized on 17th December 2007 missed justification of 1,200,000/= shillings, as the same was to be paid to a board member but no payee signature and no retirement attachment. [Exhibit C4, D2, E1]
OPINION AND RECCOMMENDATION
Having gone through statements and documents all together it is the opinion of this investigation that the suspects above be charged with sections shown and analyzed bellow in the alternative.
SECTION 22: USING DOCUMENTS INTENDED TO MISLEAD PRINCIPAL; Section 22 of the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Act provides;
A person who knowingly gives to any agent, or an agent knowingly uses with intent to deceive, or defraud his principal, any receipt, account or other document such as a voucher, a profoma invoice, an electronically generated data, minute sheet relating to his principals affairs or business, and which contains any statement which is false or erroneous or defective in any material particular, and which to is knowledge is intended to mislead the principal, commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding seven million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both.
Section 22 of the Act has two deferent scenarios. The first one is that which prohibits an Agent using the bellow mentioned documents to deceive his principal. The second is that which prohibits an ordinary person [any person] who gives an Agent of the principal the bellow mentioned documents so that when the agent uses them they may mislead the principal in his affairs or business.
In the first scenario the law prohibits a person called an Agent [Employee of the principal] using documents to mislead/deceive or to defraud the principal; such documents which the Agent is prohibited to use them with such evil intentions are;
Any receipts, Account, or other documents such as a voucher, a proforma Invoice, electronically generated data or a minute sheet.
The Agent is prohibited by the law in using such documents if such documents [the above mentioned documents] contain any statement which is false, erroneous, or defective in any material particular and which to [his] the Agents knowledge is intended to mislead the Principal in his affairs or business.
As it has already been pointed out that, the second scenario is that which prohibits an ordinary person [any person] who gives an Agent the above mentioned documents so that, when the agent uses them they may mislead his principal in his affairs or business.
In the second scenario, the law prohibits any ordinary person [not in the employment of the principal] who with evil intentions gives an Agent documents prohibited above so that when the Agent uses them the principal may be mislead in his affairs or business. Such documents which an ordinary person is prohibited to give to an Agent with such evil intentions are;
Any receipts, Account, or other documents such as a voucher, a proforma Invoice, Electronically generated data or a minute sheet.
Here an ordinary person is prohibited by the law in giving such prohibited documents to the agent if such documents [the above mentioned documents] contain any statement which is false, erroneous, or defective in any material particular and which to his knowledge[such ordinary person] is intended to mislead the Principal in his affairs or business.
SECTION 28: EMBLEZLEMENT
A person being a public official who dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public official or allows any other person to do so, commits an offence, and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding ten million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or to both.
SECTION 31: ABUSE OF POSITION
Section 31 of the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Act provides;
Any person who intentionally abuses his position in the performance or failure to perform an act, in violation of law, in the discharge of his function or use of position for purpose of obtaining an undue advantage for himself or for another person or entity, commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding five million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both.
The section provides for more than two scenarios and the first one is;
Any person who intentionally abuses his position in the performance or failure to perform an act, in violation of law, in the discharge of his functions, commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding five million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both.
The section also provides for the second scenarios as shown here under;
Any person who uses his position for the purpose of obtaining an undue advantage for himself or for another person or entity commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding five millions shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three year or to both.
The word or fixed between his function and use of position connotes a meaning that one act can be done in the alternative of another and that there are more than one offence which subject of the section may commit.
The subject of the section may either abuse his position when performing duties (first offence), or failing to perform an act (second offence), or may abuse his position by doing in violation of law (as the third offence), in the discharge of his functions, or the subject of the section may use his position for purposes of obtaining an undue advantage (fourth offence) for himself or for another person or entity.
My understanding [though I remain to be corrected] is that Section 31 of the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Act ought to be read in that conception and that combining the sentences evasively without their alternatives as the word or and coma connotes, lead to misconception of the section and hence miscarriage of justice.
Section 31 of the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Act, ought to have been drafted into four sub-section to bring a sense of more than two scenarios i.e. 31(1),(2),(3) and (4) or 31(a),(b),(c) and (d) depending on which sounds good. Section 31(1) or (a) ought to have been drafted as here bellow;
That; Any person who intentionally,
(1) Abuses his position in the Performance Of his duties generally or
(2) Fails to perform an act which he is Ordinarily bound to do, or
(3) Does an act in violation of law,
Or
(4) Uses his position for purposes
Of obtaining an undue advantage
In the discharge of his functions, commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding five million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both. It is so opined because in statutory interpretation words or and coma have the same meaning.
Section 31(2) or (b) ought to have been drafted or appear as follows;
Any person, who uses his position for the purpose of obtaining an undue advantage for himself or for another person or entity, commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding five million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both.
In my opinion, this was the wisdom behind the parliament when enacting the law particularly section 31 of the Act. That is, When one part of the provision Prohibits Public Officials against administrative irregularities when performing duties or failing to perform an act, or acting in violation of law, the other part prohibits Public Officials using their position for purposes of obtaining an undue advantage for themselves (himself) or for another person or entity.
But the emphasis here is that the provision ought to have been drafted into four subsections for an ordinary man to digest the provision. Therefore it is not necessary for sub-section (1), (2), and (3) to establish the gaining of undue advantage but just to establish an act of failing to perform an act which the suspect is/was ordinarily bound to do, or doing an act but in violation of law, or abusing the position generally as defined in legal dictionaries. Bryan A. Garner in the blacks law dictionary eighth edition defines the word abuse to mean damaging a thing; to depart from legal or reasonable use in dealing with a person or thing; or to misuse;
Very important thing here is that, it is not necessary that the advantage be received by the official for himself but the same can also be received for another person or entity or other people may receive the advantage through the position of the official. The interpretation here is that the official may not necessarily enjoy the advantage, but through his position somebody else or entity enjoys the advantage.
SECTION 32: CONSPIRACY
Any person who conspires with another person to commit an offence under this act commits a like offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding five million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both.
SECTION 317; FRAUDULENT ACCOUNTING BY CLERK;
Section 317 of the Penal Code, Cap 16 creates the offence of fraudulent accounting by clerk;
Any person who, being a clerk or servant or being employed or acting in the capacity or a clerk or servant, does any of the following acts with intent to defraud
(a) destroys, alters, mutilates or
falsifies any book, document, valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has been received by him on account of his employer, or any entry in any such book, document or account or is privy to that act;
(b) Makes or is privy to making any false entry in a book, document or account; or;
(c) Omits or is privy to omitting any material particular from any such book, document or account;
is guilty of an offence and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years.
SECTION 318; FALSE ACCOUNTING BY PUBLIC OFFICER
Section 318 of the Penal Code, Cap 16 creates the offence of false accounting by public officer.
Any person who, being an officer charged with the receipt, custody or management of any part of the public revenue or property, knowingly furnishes any false statement or return of any money or property received by him or entrusted to his care, or of any balance of money or property in his possession or under his control, is guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for seven years.
The law provides that the subject must be an officer charged with the receipt any part of the public revenue or public property. He should also be charged with the custody of any part of the public revenue or property. In the alternative He should also be charged with the management of any part of the public revenue or property. Such officer must furnish either statements or return of any money received by him or entrusted to his care.
Such officer must furnish either statements or return of any property received by him or entrusted to his care. Such officer must furnish either statements or return of any balance of money or property in his possession or under his control. Very important thing is that when furnishing such statements or return he must do knowingly that the contents of such statements or returns are false;
The law is silent as to whether investigators should prove the question as to whom the returns or statements should be furnished. The law is also silent on whether the subject must gain anything as a result of his furnishing false statements or returns. With this section the act of just furnishing false statements or returns relaying to money, property or their balance is an offence.
Any person who, being an officer charged with the receipt, custody or management of any part of the public revenue or property, knowingly furnishes any
SECTION 122; FALSE INFORMATION TO PERSON EMPLOYED IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE;
Section 122 of the Penal Code, Cape 16 creates the offence of false information to person employed in the public service;
Whoever gives to any person employed in the public service any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause that person
(a) to do or omit anything which that person ought not to do or omit, if the true state of facts respecting which the information is given were known to him; or
(b) to use the lawful power of that person to the injury or annoyance of any person,
Shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to imprisonment for six months or to a fine of one thousand shillings or to both the fine and imprisonment.
The section prohibits and protects persons employed in the public service to be cheated by being given information known or believed to be false by the giver of the information, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause the public servant.
(a) to do or omit anything which the public servant ought not to do or omit, if the true state of facts respecting which the information is given were known to him; or
(b) to use the lawful power of the public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person,
SECTION 95; FALSE CLAIMS BY OFFICIALS;
Section 95 of the Penal Code, Cape 16 creates the offence false claims by officials;
Any person who, being employed in the public service in such a capacity as to require him or to enable him to furnish returns or statements touching any sum payable or claimed to be payable to himself or to any other person, or touching any other matter required to be certified for the purpose of any payment of money or delivery of goods to be made to any person, makes a return or statement touching any such matter which is, to his knowledge, false in any material particular, is guilty of an offence.
If the section is to be split into parts for easy analysis then its tone would have sound this way.
Any person who, being employed in the public service in;
i) such a capacity as to require him or enable him to furnish returns or statements touching any sum payable or claimed to be payable to himself or to any other person;
ii) such a capacity as to require him or enable him to furnish returns or statements touching any other matter required to be certified for the purpose of any payment of money;
iii) such a capacity as to require him enable him to furnish returns or statements touching any other matter required to be certified for the purpose of delivery of goods to be made to any person,
iv) such a capacity as to require him or enable him to furnish returns or statements touching any sum payable or claimed to be payable to himself or to any other person;
Makes a return or statement touching any such matter which is, to his knowledge, false in any material particular, is guilty of an offence.
SECTION 96: ABUSE OF OFFICE
Section 96 of the Penal Code, Cape 16 creates the offence Abuse of office;
(1) Any person who, being employed in the
Public service does or directs to be done in abuse of the authority of his office, any arbitrary act prejudicial to the rights of another is guilty of an offence.
(2) If the act done or directed to be done is for purposes of gain, a person convicted of an offence contrary to subsection (1) is liable to imprisonment for three years.
(3) A prosecution for an offence under this section shall not be instituted except by or with the sanction of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
EXHIBITS LIST
E1 INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT
E2 PAYMENT VOUCHER NUMBER 0016454
E3 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Ndeshukurwa Sumari)
E4 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Suleman Chambo)
E5 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Benedeta Kinabo)
E6 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Amina Mbarouk)
E7 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Samwel Moshi)
E8 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Luciana Maruma)
E9 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Frederick Monyo)
E10 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Paul Chikira)
E11 PAYMENT VOUCHER NUMBER 00017017
E12 PAYMENT VOUCHER NUMBER 00017018
E13 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Paul Chikira)
E14 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Suleman Chambo)
E15 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Amina Mbarouk)
E16 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Benedeta Kinabo)
E17 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Frederick Monyo)
E18 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Baltazar Njau)
E19 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Samwel Moshi)
E20 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Luciana Maruma)
E21 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Paul Chikira)
E22 BOARD MEETING MINUTES ON 12/12/2007
E23 BOARD MEETING MINUTES ON 13/12/2007
E24 NOTICE TO ATTEND BOARD MEETING
(Suleman Chambo)
Democrasia
Member
- Feb 1, 2008
- 79
- 3
mAAFISA HAO HAO WA PCCB mkubwa
Rev. Kishoka
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 7, 2006
- 4,526
- 1,552
Nimesoma gazeti leo kuwa TAKUKURU wameanza kumchunguza CEO wa TANROADS, Ephraim Mrema kwa tuhuma kuwa alipata kazi kwa mlango wa nyuma na kama analipa kodi ya mapato yake inavyopaswa.
Mnaona double standards za Serikali yetu na hasa vyombo vya dola na sheria?
Mrema katuhumiwa kuwa haieleweki alivyopata kazi na mshahara wake ni mkubwa, TAKUKURU inaanza kumchunguza bila kimemo.
Lakini kwenye suala la Richmond ambalo Lowassa na Msabaha walihusika na kutuhumiwa pamoja na wengine, TAKUKURU ilisema mapema hakuna kosa na hata baada ya Kamati ya Bunge ya Mwakyembe kubainisha kuwa mchakato mzima wa Richmond ulikuwa na walakini mkubwa na kuegemea kuwa na vitendo vya uhalifu na Rushwa, TAKUKURU wamekaa kimya.
Njoo suala la Karamagi na mkataba wa Buzwagi. Mazingira yanaonyesha ama kuna hujuma au rushwa, lakini Karamagi anapeta na TAKUKURU wamekaa mguu pande.
Ingiza Rada, Chenge katuhumiwa, Serikali na TAKUKURU wanasema hawafanyi uchunguzi wa ndani, hawana sababu kwa kuwa Serikali ya Uingereza inaichunguza BAE. Sasa kama afisa mwandamizi wa Serikali yetu inasadikiwa alipokea Rushwa ili nchi iingie mkataba mkenge, kwa nini Serikali yetu isimchukulie huyu mtuhumiwa na badala yake kudai fidia kwa muuzaji na si afisa mwandamizi aliyefanya uzembu au uhujumu?
EPA, Meremeta, Tangold, CIS. Sijasikia Takukuru kuanza uchunguzi mara moja kwenye hili mpaka Slaa alipopiga kelele ingawa tulishaanza kupiga kelele Mwaka mmoja kabla ya siri kufichuka. Ni vipi TAKUKURU ilipuuzia suala zima na kujifanya haina uwezo mpaka kulazimishwa na Bunge huku uhujumu wa hali ya juu unaendelea BOT kwa kisingizio cha Usalama wa Taifa?
ATCL! Tumeingia mkataba bomu, maafisa wa ATCL wamejinunulia magarina kuingia mkataba mmbovu ambao unaigharmu Serikali na Taifa mamilioni ya fedha. Lakini si TAKUKURU au Polisi waliokwenda kwa haraka kuwachunguza kina Mattaka kuhusiana na hili.
Ripoti ya CAG. Utouh katoa ripoti mwaka jana inayoonyesha uzembe uliokithiri ambao una harufu ya ubadhirifu wa karibu Shilingi Trilioni 3! Lakini sijasikia TAKUKURU wakichunguza hasa lile suala la mikataba na manunuzi yanayofanyika bila kufuata taratibu.
Cha maana TAKUKURU walichofanya ni kukamata watu kwa tuhuma za Rushwa ndogo ndogo na za uzandiki kama suala la kina Mollel na Laizer wa Arusha na kugombea nafasi NEC CCM na sasa hili la Mrema wa Tanroads.
Je kuna faida gani kuendelea kuwa na Imani na Serikali na vyombo vya Dola na Sheria ikiwa vinafanya mambo kwa upendeleo?
Mnaona double standards za Serikali yetu na hasa vyombo vya dola na sheria?
Mrema katuhumiwa kuwa haieleweki alivyopata kazi na mshahara wake ni mkubwa, TAKUKURU inaanza kumchunguza bila kimemo.
Lakini kwenye suala la Richmond ambalo Lowassa na Msabaha walihusika na kutuhumiwa pamoja na wengine, TAKUKURU ilisema mapema hakuna kosa na hata baada ya Kamati ya Bunge ya Mwakyembe kubainisha kuwa mchakato mzima wa Richmond ulikuwa na walakini mkubwa na kuegemea kuwa na vitendo vya uhalifu na Rushwa, TAKUKURU wamekaa kimya.
Njoo suala la Karamagi na mkataba wa Buzwagi. Mazingira yanaonyesha ama kuna hujuma au rushwa, lakini Karamagi anapeta na TAKUKURU wamekaa mguu pande.
Ingiza Rada, Chenge katuhumiwa, Serikali na TAKUKURU wanasema hawafanyi uchunguzi wa ndani, hawana sababu kwa kuwa Serikali ya Uingereza inaichunguza BAE. Sasa kama afisa mwandamizi wa Serikali yetu inasadikiwa alipokea Rushwa ili nchi iingie mkataba mkenge, kwa nini Serikali yetu isimchukulie huyu mtuhumiwa na badala yake kudai fidia kwa muuzaji na si afisa mwandamizi aliyefanya uzembu au uhujumu?
EPA, Meremeta, Tangold, CIS. Sijasikia Takukuru kuanza uchunguzi mara moja kwenye hili mpaka Slaa alipopiga kelele ingawa tulishaanza kupiga kelele Mwaka mmoja kabla ya siri kufichuka. Ni vipi TAKUKURU ilipuuzia suala zima na kujifanya haina uwezo mpaka kulazimishwa na Bunge huku uhujumu wa hali ya juu unaendelea BOT kwa kisingizio cha Usalama wa Taifa?
ATCL! Tumeingia mkataba bomu, maafisa wa ATCL wamejinunulia magarina kuingia mkataba mmbovu ambao unaigharmu Serikali na Taifa mamilioni ya fedha. Lakini si TAKUKURU au Polisi waliokwenda kwa haraka kuwachunguza kina Mattaka kuhusiana na hili.
Ripoti ya CAG. Utouh katoa ripoti mwaka jana inayoonyesha uzembe uliokithiri ambao una harufu ya ubadhirifu wa karibu Shilingi Trilioni 3! Lakini sijasikia TAKUKURU wakichunguza hasa lile suala la mikataba na manunuzi yanayofanyika bila kufuata taratibu.
Cha maana TAKUKURU walichofanya ni kukamata watu kwa tuhuma za Rushwa ndogo ndogo na za uzandiki kama suala la kina Mollel na Laizer wa Arusha na kugombea nafasi NEC CCM na sasa hili la Mrema wa Tanroads.
Je kuna faida gani kuendelea kuwa na Imani na Serikali na vyombo vya Dola na Sheria ikiwa vinafanya mambo kwa upendeleo?
BAK
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 11, 2007
- 124,769
- 288,283
- Thread starter
- #160
Rev. kwa kuongezea ni jinsi Mkapa na Yona walivyojimilikisha Kiwira Coal Plant katika mazingira ya kifisadi.
Ndiyo maana mimi nasema sasa hivi hatuna uongozi Tanzania bali tuna genge la wahuni na mafisadi waliojivisha ngozi ya uongozi.
Similar Discussions
-
THE PRESIDENTIAL TAX REFORMS COMMISSION ‘A defining moment now awaiting POLITICAL WILL’
- Started by Respicius Mwijage
- Replies: 2
-
-