Buchanan
JF-Expert Member
- May 19, 2009
- 13,192
- 1,976
Wakuu,
Huwezi kuamini lakini ndivyo ilivyotokea Mahakama Kuu ambapo Wakili Peter Kibatala alipoiambia Mahakama hiyo kwamba eti Rasimu ya Warioba ni Sheria. Watu tulikuwa tunajiuliza kwa nini UKAWA walikuwa wanakomalia sana Rasimu ya Warioba kumbe wenzetu waliamini kwamba hiyo ni Sheria.
Hayo yako kwenye kesi ya Saed Kubenea v. Attorney General, Misc. Civil Cause No. 28 of 2014 katika ukurasa wa 9 tunapata haya yafuatayo:
It was Mr. Masaju's further argument that the Draft Constitution has no legal force, that it is "a mere annex" to the Commission's Report [relying on section 20 (1)] and can only serve as a "working document". He wondered how could a document that is not part of the law be binding on the Constituent Assembly. Submitting on this point, Mr. Kibatala stated that the Draft Constitution was "law" and therefore binding.
Lakini Mahakama Kuu ilijibu katika ukurasa huo huo wa 9 kwa ujasiri kama ifuatavyo:
We would respectfully differ from both counsel on this point, though we differ more markedly from counsel for the petitioner's position. We do not think that the Draft Constitution is law, as it has not been enacted into one.
Tunawashauri wana-UKAWA wakubali tu Hukumu ya Mahakama Kuu kwamba Rasimu ya Warioba ilikuwa sio Sheria bali ni "WORKING DOCUMENT" ili kutengeneza Katiba Mpya!
Pia Kibatala na usomi wake wote kuamini kwamba RASIMU YA WARIOBA ni SHERIA nalo linatupa mashaka sana na weledi wake!
Ni hayo tu kwa leo, karibuni kwa mjadala!
Huwezi kuamini lakini ndivyo ilivyotokea Mahakama Kuu ambapo Wakili Peter Kibatala alipoiambia Mahakama hiyo kwamba eti Rasimu ya Warioba ni Sheria. Watu tulikuwa tunajiuliza kwa nini UKAWA walikuwa wanakomalia sana Rasimu ya Warioba kumbe wenzetu waliamini kwamba hiyo ni Sheria.
Hayo yako kwenye kesi ya Saed Kubenea v. Attorney General, Misc. Civil Cause No. 28 of 2014 katika ukurasa wa 9 tunapata haya yafuatayo:
It was Mr. Masaju's further argument that the Draft Constitution has no legal force, that it is "a mere annex" to the Commission's Report [relying on section 20 (1)] and can only serve as a "working document". He wondered how could a document that is not part of the law be binding on the Constituent Assembly. Submitting on this point, Mr. Kibatala stated that the Draft Constitution was "law" and therefore binding.
Lakini Mahakama Kuu ilijibu katika ukurasa huo huo wa 9 kwa ujasiri kama ifuatavyo:
We would respectfully differ from both counsel on this point, though we differ more markedly from counsel for the petitioner's position. We do not think that the Draft Constitution is law, as it has not been enacted into one.
Tunawashauri wana-UKAWA wakubali tu Hukumu ya Mahakama Kuu kwamba Rasimu ya Warioba ilikuwa sio Sheria bali ni "WORKING DOCUMENT" ili kutengeneza Katiba Mpya!
Pia Kibatala na usomi wake wote kuamini kwamba RASIMU YA WARIOBA ni SHERIA nalo linatupa mashaka sana na weledi wake!
Ni hayo tu kwa leo, karibuni kwa mjadala!
