Swali kwa Rais Samia: Matamko Gani ya TEC yalivuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa?

[Doctor Mama Amon]

Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura akitetea (1) kauli za Rais Samia dhidi ya matamko ya TEC, (2) barua ya mshtaka hewa dhidi ya Padre Kitima na (3) barua ya uzushi dhidi ya Askofu Riwaichi. Lwezaura amejitambulisha kwa waandishi wa habari kuwa ni mseminari aliyefika seminari kuu lakini akaukosa upadre siku chache kabla ya upadirisho. Hivyo, Lwezaura ni mtaalam wa falsafa, teolojia na masomo mengine ya elimu dunia kama vile homilia. Tamko lifuatalo limeandaliwa kwa kuzingatia mambo haya yote.

SAMIA NA UKUTA UNAOTENGANISHA MAMBO YA DINI NA MAMBO YA SIASA: MATAMKO GANI YA VIONGOZI WA TEC YALIVUNJA KATIBA NA SHERIA ZA TANZANIA?
​

I. USULI

Tamko hili limeandaliwa kwa ajili ya kujibu swali lifuatalo: Matamko Gani ya TEC yanayodaiwa kuvuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, na kama kweli yalivuka ukuta huo ni kwa kiasi gani yalivuka ukuta huo?

Baada ya utafiti wa kina, natoa jawabu kamilifu lenye kujibu swali hili kwa kuonyesha mambo matatu makuu.

Mosi, ingawa serikali ya jamhuri inayofuata mfumo wa haki na majukumu asilia inapaswa kufanya kazi bila kuegemea upande wowote wa kidini, na hivyo kuheshimu ukuta unaotenganisha dini na serikali, bado ukweli ufuatao unasimama:

1. Kwamba, waumini binafsi wakiongozwa na "Seti Kuu ya Sheria Zinazoratibu Malimwengu" au sheria ya maadili asilia inayotokana na sheria kuu tajwa, bado wako huru kuleta mafundishio ya imani zao kuhusu maasili asilia, kama yanavyofundishwa na viongozi wao wa kidini, kwenye uwanja wa siasa na kushawishi utungaji wa sera za serikali unaozingatia mafundisho haya;
2. Kwamba, viongozi wa kidini, huku wakiwa wanatekeleza wajibu wao wa kimaadili na kikatiba wa kutetea haki za asilia za wafuasi wao, kama wanavyozisoma kutoka kwenye "Seti Kuu ya Sheria Zinazoratibu Malimwengu" au sheria ya maadili asilia inayotokana na sheria kuu tajwa, wanalazimika kukosoa moja kwa moja sera za serikali zinazokiuka haki asilia za waumini wao na raia baki wanaoweza kuwa waumini wao katika siku za usoni;
3. Na kwamba, serikali, huku ikitekeleza wajibu wake wa kikatiba wa kutetea haki za asili za raia, huku ikiwa inazisoma kutoka kkwenye katiba ya nchi, inawajibika kukosoa moja kwa moja sera za kidini zinazokiuka haki hizo.

Pili, ni kweli kwamba, kupitia utekelezaji wa sera za utekaji, utesaji, mauaji ya raia, na uporaji wa rasilimali za Taifa, serikali imevunja haki asilia za raia; na hivyo kuwapa sababu viongozi wa dini, wakimwemo viongozi wa Kanisa Katoliki, kukosoa na kupinga sera hizo, kwa sababu ni haramu kwa mujibu wa sheria ya maadili asilia, inayotambuliwa kikatiba, na wanayopaswa kuitetea kwa mujibu wa mamlaka yao kama viongozi wa dini.

Hivyo, tofauti na madai ya Rais Samia, matamko ya viongozi wa Kanisa Katoliki hayajavuka ukuta wa kikatiba na kisheria unaotenganisha mambo ya dini na mambo ya siasa.

Na tatu, ni hitimisho kwamba, majibu ya serikali kwa viongozi wa dini, wakimwemo viongozi wa Kanisa Katoliki, wanaokosoa sera za serikali zinazokiuka sheria ya maadili asilia, na hivyo kuvunja katiba ya nchi, ni majibu yanayokwepa hoja ya msingi, na kuongelea mambo yaliyo nje ya mjadala. Serikali inapaswa kujisahihisha na kurudi kwenye barabara ya kikatiba.

Kwa ajili ya kutetea mtazamo huu, tamko hili limegawanyika kwenye sehemu zifuatazo:

1. Usuli
2. Utangulizi
3. Masuala yanayobishaniwa kati ya serikali na kanisa katoliki
4. Utaratibu uliotumika kufanya utafiti
5. Misingi ya jurisprudensi, katiba, sheria na falsafa ya haki na majukumu
6. Matokeo ya utafiti
7. Hitimisho na mapendekezo
8. Marejeo muhimu

II. UTANGULIZI

Tangu mwezi Aprili mwaka 2025, kuna vita ya mawazo, maneno na vitendo inayoendelea kati ya serikali na Kanisa Katoliki, na ambayo napendekeza kuifupisha kwa kutumia mtiririko wa tarehe za matukio muhimu kama ifuatavyo:

1. Tarehe 30 Aprili 2025, saa 4 usiku, Padri Charles Kitima alijeruhiwa na watu wasiojulikana akiwa ndani ya eneo la Makao Makuu ya TEC, Kurasini, Dar es Salaam, ambako pia ndipo yalipo makazi yake rasmi.
2. Tarehe 02 Desemba 2025, Rais Samia akiwa anaongea na wazee wa Dar es Salaam, alidai kwamba, kupitia matamko nane yaliyotolewa na TEC tangu 2021, Kanisa Katoliki linavuka ukuta wa kikatiba na kisheria unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa nchini Tanzania. Rais Samia anaonekana kuwatuhumu viongozi wa TEC kwamba hawajui maana ya sheria dunia wala umuhimu wake katika kuendesha nchi yenye dini nyingi.
3. Tarehe 22 Disemba 2025 watu wawili, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga na Elia Phaustine Kabote, waliojitambulisha kuwa ni waumini wa Kanisa Katoliki, walidai kuwasilisha barua ya malalamiko dhidi ya Padri Charles Kitima kwa Balozi wa Papa nchini Tanzania, wakiwa wanadai kwamba Padri Kitima, ambaye pia ni Katibu Mkuu wa TEC, anavuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, kwa maana kwamba, anafanya kazi kama mshauri wa kisiasa wa CHADEMA kuhusu umuhimu na ulazima wa siasa zinazozingatia tunu na maadili ya kiutu.
4. Tarehe 25 Desemba 2025, akitoa homilia ya Krismasi, Askofu Mkuu wa Jimbo Kuu Katoliki la Dar es Salaam, Jude Thaddeus Ruwaichi, alisema kwamba vijana walioandika Barua ya kumshitaki Padre Kitima ni "wasaliti wa imani ya Kikristo" inayokataza mbinu haramu kutumika Kwa ajili ya kufanikisha lengo jema, na hivyo akawaita "malofa" Kwa sababu hiyo.
5. Tarehe 27 Desemba 2025, Mtu ambaye hakutaja jina lake, alisambaza barua ya wazi kwa Balozi wa Papa juu ya kauli ya Askofu Ruwa’ichi, kwenye mitandao ya kijamii, ikibeba “malalamiko rasmi dhidi ya kauli na utaratibu wa Askofu Mkuu Yuda Thaddeus Ruwaichi,” ambapo mwandishi alimwomba Papa kuchunguza mwenendo wa Askofu Ruwaichi ambao alidai unaenda kinyume na misingi ya Kikanuni, kwa kuingilia Mamlaka ya Vatican na kutumia lugha ya dharau dhidi ya Waumini kwa kuwaita Wasaliti wa Imani ya Kikrito wanaoendekeza njaa, na hivyo malofa.
6. Na tarehe 30 Desemba 2025, Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura, ambaye ni mseminari wa zamani aliyefukuzwa seminarini kwa sababu ya ukosefu wa wito wa kipadre rohoni mwake, alikutana na waandishi wa habari na kumlaumu Askofu Ruwaichi kwa kukiuka sheria za Kanisa katoliki, na hasa kifungu namba 212(3) kinachowapa waumini katoliki haki ya kuhoji utendaji kazi wa wakuu wa kanisa, pale waumini wanapokosa haki zao za kidini.

Baada ya kutafakari kwa makini matamshi ya umma yanayoendelea, ambayo yamechochewa na uhusiano tata kati ya TEC na Serikali nchini Tanzania, nimeamua kutoa maoni binafsi, kwa kutumia mfumo wa “amicus curiae brief,” yaani "tamko la rafiki wa mahakama ya umma."

Jukumu la tamko hili ni kuwasaidia wadau wa mahakama ya umma kufanya maamuzi sahihi kwa kuwapatia ushahidi na hoja zote muhimu katika mfumo unaoweza kupokelewa na akili kirahisi.

III. MASUALA YANAYOBISHANIWA KATI YA SERIKALI NA KANISA KATOLIKI

Swali kuu linalojibiwa na tamko hili ni hili hapa: Matamko Gani ya TEC yanayodaiwa kuvuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, na kama kweli yalivuka ukuta huo ni kwa kiasi gani yalivuka ukuta huo?

Kwa mujibu wa jadi na historia pana ya kidunia, ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha baadhi ya mambo ya kidini na baadhi ya mambo za kisiasa, ulibuniwa na wanazuoni ili kufanikisha mambo matatu.

Yaani, kulinda uhuru wa kidini katika jamii yenye dini nyingi, kwa kulinda haki za taasisi za kidini dhidi ya makucha ya kiserikali, kulinda haki za Serikali dhidi ya makucha ya kidini, na kulinda haki za taasisi moja ya kidini dhidi ya makucha ya taasisi Baki za kidini.

Hivyo, kati ya serikali na wadau baki, ukuta huu unafanya kazi kama mlango wenye bawaba zinazouruhusu kufunguka kuelekea pande mbili.

Yaani kuelekea upande wa siasa katika wakati mwafaka, na kuelekea upande wa dini katika wakati mwafaka.

Yaani, kwa upande mmoja, ukuta huu unapaswa kuruhusu mtiririko wa mawazo fulani kutoka upande wa dini kwenda upande wa siasa, na unapaswa kuzuia mtiririko wa mawazo mengine ya kidini yasiende upande wa siasa.

Na kwa upande wa pili, ukuta huu unapaswa kuruhusu mtiririko wa mawazo fulani kutoka upande wa serikali kwenda upande wa dini, na unapaswa kuzuia mtiririko wa mawazo mengine ya kisiasa yasiende upande wa dini.

Na pili, kila milango ya ukuta huu inapofunguliwa kwenda upande wowote, inapaswa kufanya kazi kama "chekecheo," yaani chujio lenye uweze wa kuzuia chembechembe zenye ukubwa unaopungua kipenyo cha urefu fulani na kuruhusu chembechembe zenye ukubwa unaozidi kipenyo cha urefu fulani kupita.

Hivyo basi, dokezo hili linapendekeza kutoa mtazamo wa kiufundi kuhusu maswali madogo yafuatayo, yakiwa ndio yanayobishaniwa na pande mbili husika, yaani:

1. Ni kweli kwamba viongozi wa TEC kwamba hawajui maana ya sheria wala umuhimu wake katika kuendesha nchi yenye dini nyingi?
2. Kama ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha "mambo ya kidini" na "mambo ya kisiasa", ni kama "chekecheo" ambalo linapaswa kutusaidia kutambua haki za taasisi za kidini dhidi ya taasisi za kisiasa, haki hizo ni zipi?
3. Kama ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha "mambo ya kidini" na "mambo ya kisiasa", ni kama "chekecheo" ambalo linapaswa kutusaidia kutambua haki za taasisi za kisiasa dhidi ya taasisi za kidini, haki hizo ni zipi?
4. Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia ni yapi na yalibeba maudhui gani?
5. Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kweli yanavuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, kama Rais Samia alivyodokeza?
6. Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kweli yanavuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini yanayowahusu TEC na mambo ya kidini yanayozihusu taasisi baki za kidini, kama Rais Samia alivyodai?
7. Kuna muumini yeyote wa Kanisa Katoliki ambaye anapaswa kukerwa na Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kiasi kwamba anastahili kuwasilisha malalamiko rasmi dhidi ya TEC mbele ya Balozi wa Papa, kama wanavyodai kina Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura?
8. Vijana walioandika Barua ya kumshtaki Padre KITIMA kwa Papa walifuata utaratibu sahihi unaitajwa ndani ya Sheria za Ianisa Katoliki?
9. Ni kweli kwamba vijana waliodai kuandika barua ya malalamiko dhidi ya Padre Kitima kwenda kwa Papa ni "malofa" kwa maana ya “waasi waliosaliti sauti ya dhamiri zao bila sababu nzuri ya kufanya hivyo"?
10. Na, Je, ni nafuu gani ambayo kila pande katika mzozo huu, yaani serikali, Kanisa Katoliki na umma mpana, unastahili?

IV. UTARATIBU ULIOTUMIKA KUFANYA UTAFITI

Utafiti huu umefanyika kwa kutumia mkakati wa "information gap analysis and evaluation," ambapo mbinu zifuarazo zilitumika:

1. Kuandaa swali kuu la utafiti,
2. Kuvunja swali kuu la utafiti katika mswali madogo nane,
3. Kubainisha taarifa zinazofahamika.
4. Kubainisha taarifa zinazokosekana.
5. Kubainisha vyanzo muhimu vya taarifa zinazokosekana, vikiwemo vitabu, makala na tovuti.
6. Kusoma vitabu, makala, tovuti na kusililiza video zenye maudhui yanayohusiana na maswali ya utafiti.
7. Kufanya uchambuzi wa taarifa zilizokuswanywa,
8. Kufanya usanisi wa taarifa hizo kwa kuongozwa na mchujo wa kiakili unaoongozwa na kanuni za kawaida za kimantiki,
9. Kuandika taarifa hii, na
10. Kuchapisha taarifa hii katika jukwaa la kidijitali la JamiiForums.com

Hatimaye, marejeo muhimu yametajwa mwishoni mwa tamko hili, na baadhi ya nakala pepe zake kuambatanishwa.

V. MISINGI YA KATIBA, SHERIA, FALSAFA YA SHERIA NA HAKI ZA WATU

Kwa ajili ya kuweza kuyajibu maswali haya kwa ukamilifu ni muhimu na lazima kujenga msingi wa kikatiba, kisheria na kifalsafa kuhusu mahusiano kati ya mambo ya dini na mambo ya siasa katika Taifa lenye dini, makabila, mapokeo, na rangi anwai.

1. Mtazamo wa kanisa katoliki kuhusu falsafa ya sheria

Kanisa Katoliki ni taasisis yenye umri wa miaka 2,000, likiwa ni mwalimu wa sheria ya maadili asilia, mwenye kuamini kwamba uwepo wake ulianzishwa na Yesu Kristo mwenyewe, ambaye aliwapa mitume wake, hasa Petro, mamlaka ya kuongoza kanisa.

Kanisa Katoliki lilianza rasmi siku ya Pentekoste ya kwanza baada ya kifo cha Yesu, ambapo mitume walipokea Roho Mtakatifu na kuanza kuhubiri Injili.

Andiko linalotumika kuhalalisha Petro kuwa papa wa kwanza ni Mathayo 16:15-19. Hivyo, Kanisa Katoliki linaamini kwamba Petro alikuwa kiongozi wa mitume na kwamba mamlaka yake ilipitishwa kwa warithi wake, ambao ni mapapa.

Mtume Petro (1 KK–68BK) anachukuliwa kuwa Papa wa kwanza, na mamlaka yake ilipitishwa kwa warithi wake.

Tangu wakati huo, Kanisa Katoliki hufanya kazi kama mtendaji wa kipekee, mwenye ushawishi, na asiye wa serikali katika mfumo wa kisheria wa kimataifa hasa kupitia Jimbo Kuu la Roma ambalo lina utu wa kisheria unaotambulika kimataifa.

Kama chombo huru, Jimbo Kuu la Roma hufanya kazi kama mamlaka ya maadili na mtendaji wa kidiplomasia anayeshiriki katika kuunda sheria za kimataifa na majadiliano ya haki za binadamu.

Katika muktadha wa mfumo wa sheria asilia za kidunia, Kanisa Katoliki hufanya kazi kama mlezi wa maadili, mwananadharia wa msingi, na sauti ya ukosoaji inayotetea uwepo wa ukweli halisi wa maadili unaopatikana kwa njia ya akili ya kibinadamu.

Ingawa mifumo ya kidunia mara nyingi huweka sheria kulingana na makubaliano ya watu binafsi au mikataba ya kijamii, Kanisa Katoliki linasisitiza kwamba sheria asilia ni utaratibu ambao haukuundwa na watu ambao hutumika kama kizio muhimu cha sheria zilizotungwa na binadamu, hasa kuhusu ulinzi wa haki za binadamu, maisha, na familia.

Kwa sababu hizi, Kanisa katoliki linafundisha na kuukubali ukweli kwamba, nchi inayoendeshwa kwa kufuata mfumo wa sheria zinazotokana na kanuni za maumbile ya watu hutegemea uwepo wa nadharia thabiti ya kisheria yenye kutoa jawabu rasmi la kifalsafa kuhusu swali lifuatala: "sheria ni kitu gani na sio kitu gani?"

Na kwa hakika, Kanisa katoliki linafundisha kuwa, Tanzania ni nchi yenye kufuata mfumo wa sheria zinazotokana na kanuni za maumbile ya watu, kwa sababu ya maneno "secular ... state" yanayotajwa katika ibara ya 3(1) ya Katiba ya nchi yetu.

Hata hivyo, katika uchambuzi huu kuna tatizo la uhalali wa matumizi ya maneno "secular ... state" katika ngazi ya kikatiba, ambao unapaswa kunyooshwa.

Sababu ni kwamba baadhi ya "wakubwa" waliamua kuchakachua katiba ya Kiswahili kwa kulichomoa kabisa neno hili.

Kwenye Katiba ya Kiingereza, ibara ya 3(1) inasomeka hivi:

"The United Republic is a democratic, secular and socialist state which adheres to multi-party democracy," (article 3(1)).​

Na kwenye Katiba ya Kiswahili, ibara hiyo inasomeka hivi:

"3(1) Jamhuri ya Muungano ni nchi ya kidemokrasia na ya kijamaa, yenye kufuata mfumo wa vyama vingi vya siasa."​

Hivyo, ni wazi kuwa, ama kimakosa au kwa makusudi, tafsiri ya ibara hii katika Katiba ya Kiswahili imeruka maneno "secular ... state," na hivyo kuifanya nakala ya Kiswahili kuwa batili kwa kiwango hicho .

Hivyo, kabla ya kuendelea na mjadala, napendekeza kurekebisha dosari hii kwa kutoa tafsiri yangu ya ibara ya 3(1) kama ifuatavyo:

"Jamhuri ya Muungano ni nchi ya kidemokrasia, yenye kufuata mfumo wa sheria zinazotokana na kanuni za maumbile ya watu, siasa ya ujamaa, na vyama vingi vya siasa" (Ibara ya 3(1)).​

Sentensi hii ni tafsiri yangu ya maneno yanayopatikana kwenye nakala ya Katiba ya nchi ya Kiingereza, ambapo nimetafsiri maneno "secular ... state" kuwa kisawe cha "nchi yenye kufuata mfumo wa sheria zinazotokana na kanuni za maumbile ya watu."

Maneno haya yanamaanisha "mfumo wa haki na majukumu asilia." Huu ni "ukweli asilia" au "maarifa asilia" yanayopatikana kupitia "milango ya maarifa asilia," ya macho, masikio, ulimi, pua, ngozi na ubongo.

Kuhusu maneno "secular ... state" nimetumia nakala ya Katiba ya Kiingereza ambayo haijachakachuliwa kama inavyopatikana kwenye tovuti ya Ofisi ya Mkaguzi na Mdhibiti Mkuu wa Hesabu za Serikali (National Audit Office).

Baada ya kusema hayo, nataka niharakishe kusema kuwa, "mfumo wa sheria zinazotokana na kanuni za maumbile ya watu" ni seti ndogo ndani ya seti kuu ya sheria zote zinazoratibu tabi za vitu anwai vilivyoko hapa duniani, mbali na watu.

Katika seti kuu tajwa kuna mfumo wa sheria za maadili ya kikristo, mfumo wa sheria za maadili ya kiislamu, mfumo wa sheria za maadili ya wapagani, na orodha inaendelea.

Wakristo, Waislamu, Wayahudi na dini kadhaa baki ni waumini wa dini zinazoongozwa na "mfumo wa sheria zinazotokana na kanuni za kiufunuo" kama unavyofahamika kupitia msahafu wa dini husika.

Kuna mfumo wa sheria za kuongoza tabia za vitu hai kama vile watu, wanyama na mimea; sheria za kuongoza tabia za vitu visivyo na akili kama vile mimea, wanyama hayawani na wadudu; sheria za kuongoza tabia za vitu visivyo hai kama vile sayari na miamba; na orodha inaendelea.

Kwa kuzingatia kitu kinachoitwa "Object Oriented Thought Process" inayojumuisha "Encapsulation, Abstraction, Inheritance, and Polymorphism," mchoro ufuatao unaonyesha uhusiano wa kingazi uliopo kati ya seti hizi za sheria, seti ya juu kabisa ikiwa ni "ultimate law" inayotoka kwa "ultimate law giver."

Source: Own work based on Matt Weisfeld (2008), The Object-Oriented Thought Process (Pearson Education); William S. Brewbaker III (2006); and William S. Brewbaker III, What Is Christian Legal Thought, 2 J. Christian Legal Thought 5 (2012).

Wanateolojia wanasema "ultimate law giver" ni Mungu, wakati wanasiasa wanasema wanaweza kusonga mbele kwa msaada wa mchujo wa kifikra pekee bila kukanusha wala kukiri uwepo wa Mungu huyo.

Kwa mujibu wa waandishi Anver Emon, Matthew Levering na David Novak (2014) katika kitabu chao "Natural Law: A Jewish, Christian and Islamic Trialogue," yote hii ni mifumo inayofanana kwa kiasi kikubwa na kutofautiana pia. Nitafupisha maudhui na muundo wa kila mfumo wa kimaadili hapa chini.

Mfumo wa sheria za maagizo ya kiserikali (positive law)

Ni maoni yangu kuwa, ndani ya Katiba ya Tanzania maneno "secular ... state" yanapaswa kutafsiriwa kwa kusoma pamoja vifungu vyote vinavyoongelea chimbuko la haki na majukumu ya watu yaliyotajwa katika katiba hii.

Vifungu hivyo ndani ya Katiba ya Tanzania (1977) ni hivi hapa: 8(1)(b), 9(a), 9(f), 9(g) na 11(2). Yaani:

• “8(1)(b) Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania ni Nchi inayofuata misingi ya demokrasia na haki ya kijamii, na kwa hiyo lengo kuu la serikali litakuwa ni ustawi wa wananchi.”
• “9(a) Mamlaka ya Nchi na vyombo vyake vyote vinawajibika kuelekeza sera na shughuli zake zote katika lengo la kuhakikisha kwamba utu na haki nyinginezo zote za binadamu zinaheshimiwa na kuthaminiwa.”
• “9(f) Mamlaka ya Nchi na vyombo vyake vyote vinawajibika kuelekeza sera na shughuli zake zote katika lengo la kuhakikisha kwamba heshima ya binadamu inahifadhiwa na kudumishwa kwa kufuata Kanuni za Tangazo la Dunia kuhusu Haki za Binadamu.”
• “9(g) Mamlaka ya Nchi na vyombo vyake vyote vinawajibika kuelekeza sera na shughuli zake zote katika lengo la kuhakikisha kwamba Serikali na vyombo vyake vyote vya umma vinatoa nafasi zilizo sawa kwa raia wote, wake kwa waume, bila ya kujali rangi, kabila, dini au hali ya mtu.”
• “9(k) Mamlaka ya Nchi na vyombo vyake vyote vinawajibika kuelekeza sera na shughuli zake zote katika lengo la kuhakikisha kwamba nchi inatawaliwa kwa kufuata misingi ya demokrasia.”
• “11(2) Kila mtu anayo haki ya kujielimisha, na kila raia atakuwa huru kutafuta elimu katika fani anayopenda hadi kufikia upeo wowote kulingana na stahili na uwezo wake.”
• "17(1) Kila raia wa Jamhuri ya Muungano anayo haki ya kwenda kokote katika Jamhuri ya Muungano..."

Kwa mujibu wa vifungu hivyo vya katiba, mchujo wa kimantiki unaofanywa na Kanisa Katoliki unaonyesha kuwa, Tanzania tunao "mfumo wa sheria zinazotokana na kanuni za maumbile ya watu" wenye kutambulishwa na mambo makuu matatu yafuatayo:

• Maumbile ya kiutu: Kila mtu ana akili na utashi
  • Hazina ya "akili" ya "kujielimisha" hadi kuondokana na "ujinga" kulingana na "uwezo wake” asilia wa kujifunza kutokana na mazingira yake (ibara ya 5(2)(b), 9(i), 11(2)).
  • Hazina ya uhuru unaomwezesha kufanya "uchaguzi" na ubaguzi wa "kidemokrasia" katika sekta zote za maisha yake (ibara ya 5(1), 9(k)), na
  • Hazina ya "mwili" unaomwezesha kila mtu "kwenda kokote" anakotaka kufika (ibara ya 17(1), 37(2)).
• Tunu zilizo kielelezo cha malengo ya kiutu: Kila mtu anayo tamaa asilia ya kufukuzia tunu za kitu, zenye kumwelekeza katika "ustawi" kamili, tunu hizo zikiwa ni pamoja na: utu, ustawi, maendeleo, usawa mbele ya utu, heshima ya binadamu, usawa mbele ya sheria, uhai, uhuru, uhuru dhidi ya umaskini, uhuru dhidi ya ujinga, uhuru dhidi ya maradhi, faragha, kusafiri, kufikiri, kueleza mawazo binafsi, uhuru wa maoni, uhuru wa imani, uhuru wa kushirikiana na watu wengine kuuunda vikundi vya kijamii, uhuru wa kushiriki katika shughuli za umma, kazi, ujira, elimu, mali (ibara ya 8(1)(b), 9, na 12-30)
• Maadili yanayoongoza matendo ya kiutu: Kila mtu anayo hulka ya kufuata kanuni za maadili zinazomwezesha kufanya "uchaguzi" wa matendo gani atekeleze na matendo yapi ayakwepe ili aweze kufikia "ustawi" wake kwa kamilifu. (ibara ya 12-30).

Kwa ajili ya ufafanuzi, "mfumo wa sheria zinazotokana na kanuni za maumbile ya watu" unazo sifa zifuatazo:

• Muundo wa binadamu: Mwili, akili, utashi huru, na tama ya kufukuzia ustawi wake kwa kupigania mema na kukwepa mabaya.
• Nafasi ya mchujo wa kiakili: Mchujo wa kiakili ni muhimu katika kutafsiri kanuni za maumbile na mapokeo ya kijadi.
• Vyanzo vya maadili: Akili, maumbile na mapokeo ya kijadi
• Chimbuko la akili: KIla mtu anazaliwa nazo, lakini hakuna uhakika kama zinatoka kwa Mungu au hapana.
• Chimbuko la maadili asilia: Mchujo wa akili ya kibinadamu
• Tunu muhimu: Madili asilia yanalenga kulinda tunu muhimu kama vile utu, uhuru, uhai, afya, maarifa, ndoa, familia na mali.
• Ustawi wa watu: Kuzingatia maadili ya asilia kunaleta ustawi wa watu na kuyakaidi kunaleta misha mabaya.
• Uhusiano kati ya maadili asilia na maadili ya ufunuo: Maadili asilia yanalaliana na maadili ya ufunuo kwa kiwango hile ambacho mchujo wa kiali wa watu wote utakionyesha.

Mfumo wa maadili ya Kiyahudi

• Mwasisi: Nabii Muda wa Torati
• Muundo wa binadamu: Mwili, akili, utashi huru, na tama ya kufukuzia ustawi wake kwa kupigania mema na kukwepa mabaya.
• Nafasi ya mchujo wa kiakili: Mchujo wa kiakili ni muhimu katika kutafsiri ufunuo, maumbile na mapokeo.
• Vyanzo vya maadili: Akili, Maumbile na Ufunuo wa Agano la Kale
• Chimbuko la akili: Mungu
• Chimbuko la maadili asilia: Mungu
• Tunu muhimu: Madili ya kidini yanalenga kulinda tunu muhimu kama vile utu, uhuru, uhai, afya, maarifa, ndoa, familia na mali.
• Ustawi wa watu: Kuzingatia maadili ya Kidini kunaleta ustawi wa watu na kuyakaidi kunaleta misha mabaya.
• Uhusiano kati ya maadili asilia na maadili ay ufunuo: Maadili ay ufunuo yanakamilisha maadili asilia.

Tunaweza kuonyesha muundo wa mfumo huu kwa msaada wa "mchoro wa kimfumo" wenye sehemu tatu zifuatazo:

Mfumo wa maadili ya Kiislamu

• Mwasisi: Mtume Mohamed
• Muundo wa binadamu: Mwili, akili, utashi huru, na tama ya kufukuzia ustawi wake kwa kupigania mema na kukwepa mabaya.
• Nafasi ya mchujo wa kiakili: Mchujo wa kiakili ni muhimu katika kutafsiri ufunuo, maumbile na mapokeo.
• Vyanzo vya maadili: Akili, Maumbile na Ufunuo wa Kurani na mapokeo ya Sunnah
• Chimbuko la akili: Mungu
• Chimbuko la maadili asilia: Mungu
• Tunu muhimu: Madili ya kidini yanalenga kulinda tunu muhimu kama vile utu, uhuru, uhai, afya, maarifa, ndoa, familia na mali.
• Ustawi wa watu: Kuzingatia maadili ya Kidini kunaleta ustawi wa watu na kuyakaidi kunaleta misha mabaya.
• Uhusiano kati ya maadili asilia na maadili ay ufunuo: Maadili ay ufunuo yanakamilisha maadili asilia.

Tunaweza kuonyesha muundo wa mfumo huu kwa msaada wa "mchoro wa kimfumo" wenye sehemu tatu zifuatazo:

Mfumo wa maadili ya Kikristo

• Mwasisi: Yesu Kristo
• Muundo wa binadamu: Mwili, akili, utashi huru, na tama ya kufukuzia ustawi wake kwa kupigania mema na kukwepa mabaya.
• Nafasi ya mchujo wa kiakili: Mchujo wa kiakili ni muhimu katika kutafsiri ufunuo, maumbile na mapokeo.
• Vyanzo vya maadili: Akili, Maumbile, Ufunuo wa Biblia na mapokeo kutikana na maandiko ya mababa wa Kanisa
• Chimbuko la akili: Mungu
• Chimbuko la maadili asilia: Mungu
• Tunu muhimu: Madili ya kidini yanalenga kulinda tunu muhimu kama vile utu, uhuru, uhai, afya, maarifa, ndoa, familia na mali.
• Ustawi wa watu: Kuzingatia maadili ya Kidini kunaleta ustawi wa watu na kuyakaidi kunaleta misha mabaya.
• Uhusiano kati ya maadili asilia na maadili ay ufunuo: Maadili ay ufunuo yanakamilisha maadili asilia.

Hivyo basi, kwa mujibu wa falsafa ya sheria (jurisprudence), kuongelea "mfumo wa sheria zinazotokana na kanuni za maumbile ya watu" ni kuongelea aina mojawapo ya sheria zinazoweza kugundulika hapa ulimwenguni (Wayne Harry Lott 2016).

Kwa pamoja sheria hizo zote zinaunda seti kuu ya sheria, seti ambayo kwa hapa nitairejea kama "Ultimate Law," yaani "Seti Kuu".

Hayati Profesa Thomas Aquinas (1225BK–1274BK) aliibatiza hii "seti kuu" jila la "Eternal Law," lakini sikubaliana na jina hili, kwa sababu niliozionyesha hapo juu. Mie nimeibatiza jina la "Ultimate Law."

Hapa napenda kuongeza kuwa, katika mtazamo wa kutofungamana na dini yoyote, tunapaswa kuelewa kuwa chimbuko la "Ultimate Law" ni "Ultimate Reality."

Na kwa ujumla, "Ultimate Reality" anaweza kuwa Mungu wa Biblia, Mungu wa Kurani, Mungi wa Wahindu, Mungu wa Wabuda, Mungu wa Wapagani, au Mungu Asiyejulikana. Laini, sio kazi ya wanasiasa kubaini mungu wa kweli ni yupi.

Kutokana na yote haya, sasa tuone fasili ya neno "sheria" bila kujali tunaongelea sheria iliyo katika tabaka gani.

Kwa mujibu wa Angus Brook (2019:1-5) sheria zilizomo katika seti kuu zinafanana kwa sababu moja kuu. Yaani ni kanuni zinazokubaliana na fasili ya jumla ya neno "sheria" isemayo kuwa:

"Law is a descriptive, prescriptive or imperative rule that governs a process of movement or change, pertaining to humans, animals, plants or inanimate physical objects, from potentiality to actuality" (Angus Brook 2019:1-5, my paraphrase).​

Fasili hii inafanana sana na ile iliyotolewa na Profesa Thomas Aquinas anayesema kuwa:

“Law is a certain rule and measure of acts whereby [an entity] is induced to [move from potency to] act or is restrained from acting” (Summa Theologica, 1–2, q. 90, aa. 1, 3; Summa contra Gentiles., 3, 114).​

Kuhusu fasili hizi, ni muhimu kuelewa kuwa:

The phrase "moving from potency to act" is a core metaphysical concept defining motion (change) as the process where something transitions from its potential (what it could be) to its actuality (what it is). ​

​

For example: A coffee cup is potentially hot, becomes actually cold (change in temperature); A student is potentially knowledgeable, becomes actually knowledgeable (learning); a seed is potentially a tree, becomes actually a tree (growth/generation); and a traveler from Dar to Dodoma is potentially at Dodoma, and becomes actually at Dodoma (motion from one point to another). ​

​

The transformation from "potency to act" requires an external "mover" as the ultimate source of all actualization, in these cases, the mover is simply a "law."​

Na kwa kujumuisha sasa tunaweza kuzigawa sheria zote katika makundi matatu, yaani:

• Sheria zinazofafanua maadili (prescriptive laws/ought-laws);
• Sheria zinazofafanua mila, desturi na maagizo ya serikali nchi (imperative laws/must-laws); na
• Sheria zinazofafanua misingi ya kimaumbile (descriptive laws/is-laws).

Kundi la kwanza ni sheria zinazofafanua maadili asilia. Hizi ni sheria zinazotaja "haki na majukumu" yanayogunduliwa na watu kwa kutumia milango sita ya fahamu asilia, yaani macho, pua, ulimi, ngozi, masikio na mchujo wa kiakili.

Sheria hizi zinaongelea upaswa wa kimaadili, yaani "moral-ought-ness," unaotamkwa na walinzi wa maadili ya jamii, ambao ni wanafalsafa. Zinatusaidia kutofautisha mema na mabaya. mfano ni:

• Usiibe mali ya jirani yako;
• Usiue mtu asiye na hatia;
• Usiseme uwongo;
• Wahesimu wazazi wake;

Sheria hizi hazibadiliki, zinaweza kuvunjwa na watu, zinagusa nchi zote duniani, na zilikuwepo tangu milele yote.

Kundi la pili ni sheria zinazofafanua mila, desturi na mapokeo ya kidini. Hizi ni sheria zinazotaja "haki na majukumu" yanayogunduliwa na manabii waliobahatika kuwasiliana na Mungu moja kwa moja, kwa niaba ya watu baki.

Sheria hizi zinaongelea upaswa wa kimaadili, yaani "moral-ought-ness," unaotamkwa kwenye misahafu ya dini za kisekta. Kwa mfano:

• Sheria ya kusali mara tatu kwa siku katika uslamu;
• Sheria za sakramenti katika ukristo;
• Sheria za vazi la hijabu katika dini ya kiislamu.

Hizi ni sheria ambazo hazitungwi na watu, raia wanaweza kuzivunja, haziwezi kubadilishwa na watu, zinatumika ndani ya jumuiya ya waumini ambao ni wafuasi wa dini husika, na misahafu inayozitaja haikuwepo tangu milele yote.

Kundi la tatu ni sheria zinazofafanua mila, desturi na maagizo ya serikali nchi. Hizi ni sheria zinazoongelea matendo ambayo ni lazima kufanyika au kuepukwa, kwa mujibu wa maamuzi ya bunge, yaani "imperative laws," zinazoongelea ulazima, yaani "statutory-must-ness."

Nchini Tanzania, tangu tupate uhuru mwaka 1961 mpaka sasa hivi mwaka 2025 kuna sheria 450 za aina hii. Sheria hizo zinajumuisha:

• Sheria ya vyama vya siasa;
• Sheria ya ajira na mahusiano kazini;
• Sheria ya pensheni;
• Sheria ya mazingira;
• Sheria ya uchaguzi;
• Na orodha inaendelea.

Hizi ni sheria zinazotungwa na viongozi wa watu kupitia vikao vinavyoongozwa na kanuni ya wengi wape, raia wanaweza kuzivunja, zinaweza kubadilishwa na viongozi waliozitunga, zinatumika ndani ya nchi pekee, na hazikuwepo tangu milele yote.

Kundi la nne ni sheria zinazofafanua misingi ya kimaumbile. Hizi ni sheria zinazoongelea mabadiliko asilia ambayo hujirudia katika namna inayoyabirika, yaani "descriptive laws."

Ni sheria zinazoongelea utabirifu wa tabia za vitu visivyo na akili, kama zinavyosomeka katika masomo ya fizikia, kemia na bayolojia, yaani "descriptive-is-ness." Hapa kuna mifano ifuatayo:

• Sheria inayolazimisha kitu chochote chenye uzito kudondoka chini badala ya kupaa juu;
• Sheria inayoruhusu sayari, nyota, na mwezi kuzunguka katika njia zake bila kugongana;
• Sheria inayoruhusu binadamu kuza binadamu badala ya kuzaa mbuzi;
• Sheria inayoruhusu mimba kubadilika na kuwa mtu mzima;
• Sheria inayoruhusu yai la kuku kubadilika na kuwa kuku badala ya kuwa bata,
• Sheria inayoruhusu mbegu ya mchungwa kubadilika hadi kuwa mti wa mchungwa badala ya kuwa mti wa mpera;
• Sheria inayoruhusu mapafu kuchuja kaboni badala ya kuchuja sumu kama linavyofanya ini.
• Sheria inayoruhusu figo kuchuja mkojo badala ya kuchuja kanoni kama yanavyofanya mapafu.
• Sheria zinazoruhusu jicho kuona, sikio kusikia, pua kunusa, ngozi ya vidole kupapasa, na akili kufanya mchujo wa kimantiki.
• Sheria inayoruhusu muungano wa kikemia kati ya oksijeni na hydrojeni kuunda maji badala ya mvinyo;
• Sheria ya ugavi na utashi katika uchumi inayoratibu mabadiliko ya bei sokoni;

Sheria hizi hazibadiliki, haziwezi kuvunjwa na watu, zinagusa nchi zote duniani, na zilikuwepo tangu milele yote.

Majumuisho muhimu kuhusu aina za sheria: Kulingana na John Stuart Mackenzie (2004:163ff), makundi haya manne ya sheria yanaweza kuunganishwa na kutofautisha kwa kutumia vigezo vikuu vinne. Kuna sheria:

• Zinazoweza kubadilika na zisizoweza kubadilika (changeable vs unchangeable laws);
• Zinazoweza kukiukwa na watu na zisizoweza kukiukwa (violable vs inviolable laws);
• Zilizokuwepo tangu milele yote na ambazo zinatungwa na watu siku hadi siku (eternal vs occurent laws);
• Zinazotumika nchi zote na zisizotumika nchi zote (global vs local laws).

Kwa kuunganisha makundi haya manne tunaweza kupata zaidi ya aina 16 za sheria. Hizi ni seti ndogo 16 za sheria zilizo ndani ya seti kuu ya sheria zote zinazoongoza mabadiliko yanayoambatana na matukio au matendo yote ulimwenguni.

Thomas Aquinas aliibatiza seti hii jina la "Eternal Law". Lakini, kutokana na uchambuzi uliofanyika hapo juu ni wazi kuwa jina hilo ni "misnomer".

Kwa hapa nimependekeza kuwa hii seti kuu ya sheria zote iitwe "Ultimate Law," na kwamba maudhui yake yanaweza kugunduliwa kwa njia tofauti.

Mfano, Waislamu wanagundua baadhi ya sheria zilizomo katika "Ultimate Law" kwa kutumia msahafu wa Kurani; na hivyo kugundua "mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo" kwa mujibu wa dini ya Kiislamu.

Wakristo wanagundua baadhi ya sheria zilizomo katika "Ultimate Law" kwa kutumia msahafu wa Biblia; na hivyo kugundua "mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo" kwa mujibu wa dini ya Kikristo.

Wahindu wanagundua baadhi ya sheria zilizomo katika "Ultimate Law" kwa kutumia msahafu wa Kihindu; na hivyo kugundua "mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo" kwa mujibu wa dini ya Kihindu.

Wabuda wanagundua baadhi ya sheria zilizomo katika "Ultimate Law" kwa kutumia miwani ya msahafu wa Kibuda; na hivyo kugundua "mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo" kwa mujibu wa dini ya Kibuda.

Waumini wa dini baki zipatazo 1,000 hadi sasa watagundua baadhi ya sheria zilizomo katika "Ultimate Law" kwa kutumia miwani ya msahafu yao; na hivyo kugundua "mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo" kwa mujibu wa misahafu ya dini husika.

Na wanasayansi, wanafalsafa na wapagani wanagundua baadhi ya sheria zilizomo katika "Ultimate Law" kwa kutumia milango sita ya fahamu, yaani macho, masikio, pua, ulimi, ngozi na mchujo wa kimantiki; na hivyo kugundua "mfumo wa haki na majukumu asilia" kwa mujibu wa mifereji asilia ya maarifa.

Uhusiano kati ya sheria za maumbile, sheria za kidini na sheria za nchi: Katika muktadha huu, mchujo wa kimantiki unaonyesha kuwa, katika jamii yenye dini nyingi zilizogawanyika katika madhehenu anwai, mambo manne yanawezekana kuhusu chimbuko la ukweli unaotumiwa na serikali katika kubuni na kutekeleza sera za kuendesha nchi. Yaani:

• Serikali inayoendesha nchi kwa kufuata mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo yanayokubaliwa na dini mojawapo na kuifanya dini hiyo kuwa dini ya kitaifa, lakini bila kufuta haki ya uhuru wa dhamiri kuhusu "mambo ya dini," na hivyi dini zingine kubaki zikiwa ni dini za daraja la pili; au
• Serikali inayoendesha nchi kwa kufuata mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo unaokubaliwa na dini zote zilizopo nchini (religious doctrines intersection), lakini bila kuifanya dini yoyote kuwa dini rasmi ya kitaifa na bila kufuta haki ya uhuru wa dhamiri kuhusu "mambo ya dini"; au
• Serikali inayoendesha nchi kwa kufuata mfumo wa haki na majukumu asilia badala ya mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo, ambapo serikali hii huchukua msimamo kwamba haina uhakika kama miungu wapo au hawapo, na hivyo, kuacha swali hilo lijibiwe na raia mmoja mmoja kwa kutumia haki yake ya uhuru wa dhamiri kuhusu "mambo ya dini."
• Serikali inayoendesha nchi kwa kufuata mfumo wa haki na majukumu asilia badala ya mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo, ambapo serikali hii huchukua msimamo kwamba hakuna miungu, na hivyo, kufuta haki ya uhuru wa dhamiri kuhusu "mambo ya dini."

2. Misingi ya katiba

Kwa kuzingatia ufafanuzi wa kisemantiki hapo juu, sasa naweza kusema kwa kujiamini kuwa nchini Tanzania, mahusiano kati ya taasisi za dini na serikali yanaratibiwa kwa kuzingatia mwongozo wa kikatiba unaopatikana katika ibara ya 3(1) kama ikisomwa pamoja na ibara ya 9(g), 13(5), 19(1), 19(2) na 19(3).

Na ibara hizi zinasomeka kama ifuatavyo:

1. "Jamhuri ya Muungano ni nchi ya kidemokrasia, yenye kufuata mfumo wa haki na majukumu asilia badala ya mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo, siasa ya ujamaa, na vyama vingi vya siasa" (Ibara ya 3(1)).
2. "Kwa hiyo, Mamlaka ya nchi na vyombo vyake vyote vinawajibika kuelekeza sera nashughuli zake zote katika lengo la kuhakikisha... kwamba Serikali na vyombo vyake vyote vya ummavinatoa nafasi zilizo sawa kwa raia wote, wake kwawaume, bila ya kujali rangi, kabila, dini au hali yamtu" (Ibara ya 9(g)).
3. "Kwa madhumuni ya ufafanuzi wa masharti ya ibara hiineno "kubagua" maana yake ni kutimiza haja, haki au mahitajimengineyo kwa watu mbalimbali kwa kuzingatia utaifa wao,kabila, pahala walipotokea, maoni yao ya kisiasa, rangi, dini, jinsia au hali yao ya maisha kwa namna ambayo watu wa ainafulani wanafanywa au kuhesabiwa kuwa dhaifu au duni nakuwekewa vikwazo au masharti ya vipingamizi ambapo watu waaina nyingine wanatendewa tofauti au wanapewa fursa au faidailiyoko nje ya masharti au sifa za lazima, isipokuwa kwamba neno "kubagua" halitafafanuliwa kwa namna ambayo itaizuia Serikalikuchukua hatua za makusudi zenye lengo la kurekebishamatatizo katika jamii." (13(5) )
4. "Kila mtu anastahili kuwa na uhuru wa mawazo, imani na uchaguzi katika mambo ya dini, pamoja na uhuru wa mtu kubadilisha dini au imani yake." (Ibara ya 19(1) )
5. "Bila ya kuathiri sheria zinazohusika za Jamhuri yaMuungano, kazi ya kutangaza dini, kufanya ibada na kueneza dini itakuwa ni huru na jambo la hiari ya mtu ya binafsi, na shughuli na uendeshaji wa jumuiya za dini zitakuwa nje ya shughuli za mamlaka ya nchi." (Ibara ya 19(2))
6. "Kila palipotajwa neno 'dini' katika ibara hii ifahamikekwamba maana yake ni pamoja na madhehebu ya dini, namaneno mengineyo yanayofanana au kuambatana na neno hilonayo yatatafsiriwa kwa maana hiyo." (Ibara ya 19(3) )

Kwa tafsiri yangu, maneno "mambo ya kidini" yanayoongelewa katika ibara ya 19(1) yanarejea "haki na majukumu ya kidini." Kwa hapa yatachukuliwa kama kinyume cha "mambo ya kisiasa" yanayorejea "haki na majukumu ya kisiasa" kama yanavyotekelezwa na taasisi mbalimbali za kitaifa.

3. Misingi ya sheria

Mpaka sasa, Tanzania hatuna sheria maalum iliyotungwa na Bunge kwa ajili ya kufafanua vifungu hivi vya kikatiba juu ya mfumo mwafaka wa mahusiano kati ya dini na serikali.

Lakini, kuna sheria kadhaa zimetafsiri ibara za katika na kuzitolewa mwongozo wa kisekta katika uendeshaji wa nchi. Baadhi ya sheria zinajadiliwa hapa chini.

(a) Sheria ya vyama vya siasa

Kwa mujibu wa ibara ya 19(1)(c), 19(2)(a)(i) na 27(6), katika sheria ya vyama vya siasa, sura ya 258, ya mwaka 2023, zimepiga marufuku vyama vya siasa kuendesha shughuli zake kwa kufuata mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kidini kama unavyopatikana kwenye misahafu na mapokeo ya kidini.

Tunasoma haya:

• "A political party shall not qualify for provisional registration unless...its membership is voluntary and open to the citizens of the United Republic without discrimination on account of gender, disability, religious belief, race, tribe, ethnic origin, profession or occupation" (19(1)(c)).​
• "A political party shall not qualify for provisional registration where, by its constitution, rules and policies or activities ... it aims to advocate or further the interests of ... any religious belief or group" (19(2)(a)(i)).​
• "A person shall not use religion or religious organisation to further the objectives of a political party." (27(6)). ​

(b) Sheria ya Ajira na Mahusiano Kazini

Kifungu cha 7(4) cha Sheria ya Ajira na Mahusiano Kazini (Na. 6 toleo la 2023) kinawakataza waajiri kuwabagua wafanyakazi moja kwa moja au kwa njia isiyo ya moja kwa moja kwa misingi ikiwemo dini, maoni ya kisiasa, rangi, rangi, jinsia, hali ya ndoa, ulemavu, na umri.

(c) Sheria ya vyama vya kijamii

Ibara ya 2(f) ya sheria ya vyama vya kijamii, sura ya 337 toleo la 2023, inatumika kusajili vyama vya kidini na inatoa fasili ifuatayo ya neno "society", ambapo, ibara hii inasema kuwa

"The word 'society' means a non-partisan and non-political association of ten or more persons established for professional, social, cultural, religion or economic benefits or welfare of its members, formed and registered under this Act, but does not include... a political party formed and registered under the Political Parties Act."

Hivyo, chini ya ibara ya 2(f) kuna ukuta wa kisheria unaotenganisha chama cha siasa na taasisi ya kidini.

(d) Sheria ya makosa ya jinai

Kanuni ya Adhabu, Sura ya 16 toleo la 2023, chini ya Sura ya XIV, hasa Kifungu cha 125 (Tusi kwa dini) na 129 (Maneno yanayoumiza hisia za kidini) hutumika kuzuia Makosa Yanayohusiana na Dini.

(e) Majumuisho muhimu

Vifungu hivi vya kikatiba na kisheria vina maana kwamba mambo ya dini na mambo ya siasa yanapaswa kutenganishwa kwa kiwango ambacho kitahakikisha haki, utulivu wa umma, na serikali inayowatendea raia wote kwa usawa, bila kujali imani yao. Yaani:

• Hakuna Vyama vya Siasa vya Kidini: Inakataza uundaji wa chama cha siasa kinachotegemea utambulisho wa kidini au imani, ili kuzuia mgawanyiko katika misingi ya kidini.
• Kampeni za Kisiasa: Sehemu za ibada (mahekalu, misikiti, makanisa) haziwezi kutumika kama majukwaa ya kampeni za uchaguzi, mikutano ya kisiasa, au kuomba kura kwa chama au mgombea maalum.
• Kukatazwa kwa Matamshi ya Chuki: Wanasiasa wanapigwa marufuku kutumia maneno ya kidini ili kuleta uadui, au vurugu kati ya vikundi tofauti vya kidini au kijamii.
• Kutoegemea upande wowote kwa Serikali: Serikali inatarajiwa kubaki bila upande wowote na bila upendeleo kuhusu utekelezwaji wa mambo ya kidini, kuhakikisha utulivu wa umma, uvumilivu, na kutobagua.
• Utungaji sera na Sheria: Ingawa imani binafsi za mwanasiasa zinaweza kushawishi mbinu zao za kisiasa, sheria na sera za umma zinapaswa kutegemea mchujo halali wa kimantiki unaowaunganisha raia wote na kuleta manufaa ya wote, pasipo kuzingatia maagizo ya mafundisho maalum ya kidini.
• Kulinda Haki za Mtu Binafsi: Hatua hii husaidia kulinda uhuru wa dini na imani kwa raia wote, wakiwemo walio wachache na wasioamini, kwa kuhakikisha hakuna dini au mfumo mmoja wa imani unaotawala ajenda ya serikali kwa kutumia ukweli wa kiufunuo.

4. Misingi ya falsafa kuhusu Haki za binadamu

Kifalsafa, chimbuko la "mfumo wa haki na majkumu asilia" ni imani kwamba matendo mabaya kama vile kuiba ni mabaya, sio kwa sababu yanakatazwa na Mungu anayetajwa katika misahafu ya kidini, bali Mungu huyo anayakataza matendo haya kwa sababu ni mabaya.

Kwa hiyo, hitimisho ni kwamba, katika mipaka ya akili ya binadamu, tunaweza, na tunapaswa, kutafuta maelezo asilia kuhusu ubaya wa matendo yetu, bila kulazimika kuchungulia kwenye misahafu wala kuangalia katika mapokeo ya kidini.

Maana ya haki na majukumu

Kulingana na maandiko ya John Finnis 2011:199-205) pamoja na Manuel G. Velasquez (2014:96-111), tangu enzi za Mgiriki aitwaye Aristotle (384–322 KK), Muitaliano aitwaye Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274BK), Mjerumani aitwaye Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), Mmarekani aitwaye Germaine Grisez (1929-2018), Mtanzania aitwaye Julius Nyerere (1922-1999), hadi leo, wanazuoni wanakubaliana kuhusu jawabu la swali lifuatalo:

Haki za binadamu ni kitu gani, sio kitu gani, zina umuhimu gani, na matendo gani yanahesabika kuwa haki za binadamu?
Hasa, wanazuoni hawa wanakubaliana kuwa kila haki ya binadamu inayofahamika inaongelea mambo sita kwa mpigo, yaani:

• Madai (U) aliyo nayo mtu wa kwanza dhidi ya mtu wa pili (claim);
• Mleta madai (V), yaani mtu wa kwanza aliye na madai dhidi ya mtu wa pili (claim-holder);
• Mjibu madai (W), yaani mtu wa pili anayepaswa kutekeleza madai ya mtu wa kwanza (duty-bearer);
• Wajibu (X) unaopaswa kutimizwa na mtu wa pili kwa kufanya au kujizuia kufanya kitendo fulani (duty);
• Tunu (Y) ambayo mtu wa kwanza anapaswa kuwa huru kunufaika nayo (human good);
• Sababu au kigezo (Z) kinachohalalisha madai ya mtu wa kwanza dhidi ya mtu wa pili (justification).

Kwa mfano, katika uhusiano wa mwajiri, mwajiriwa, ujira, mahitaji ya msingi, na kazi iliyofanyika, mchnganuo uko kama ifuatavyo:

• Madai (claim) ni ujira, yaani mshahara unaopaswa kulipwa baada ya kufanya kazi
• Mleta madai (claim-holder) ni mwajiriwa,
• Mbeba jukumu la kujibu madai (duty-bearer) ni mwajiri mwenye jukumu la kulioa mshahara,
• Lengo la kujibu madai (target human good) ni kumwezesha mwajiriwa kujitimizia mahitaji yake ya msingi (chakula, mavazi, malazi, nauli, karo ya watoto, kodi ya pango, umeme, maji), na
• Sababu au kigezo cha kuhalalisha uwepo wa madai (justification) ni kazi iliyofanyika kwa mujibu wa mkataba.

Kwa ujumla, wanazuoni wanakubaliana kuwa haki zote zinazofahamika, zinaweza kugawanwa kwenye makundi manne yafuatayo, bila kubaki:

• Haki za “madai chanya” (positive claim rights),
• Haki za “madai hasi” (negative claim rights),
• Haki za “uhuru chanya” (positive liberty rights) na
• Haki za “uhuru hasi” (negative liberty rights).

Ufafanuzi mfupi wa haki hizi ni kama ifuatavyo:

• Haki ya “madai chanya” (positive claim right) ni madai aliyo nayo mtu wa kwanza (U) dhidi ya mtu wa pili (V), ambapo mtu wa pili anakuwa na wajibu wa kufanya kitendo fulani (W), kwa ajili ya kumwezesha mtu wa kwanza kunufaika na tunu fulani iliyo stahiki yake (X), kwa sababu ya uwepo wa kigezo (Z) kinachohalalisha madai husika.
• Haki ya “madai hasi” (negative claim right) ni madai (U) aliyo nayo mtu wa kwanza (V) dhidi ya mtu wa pili (W), ambapo mtu wa pili anakuwa na wajibu wa kujizuia kufanya kitendo fulani (X), kwa ajili ya kumruhusu mtu wa kwanza kuwa huru kunufaika na tunu fulani iliyo stahiki yake (Y), kwa sababu ya uwepo wa kigezo (Z) kinachohalalisha madai husika.
• Haki ya “uhuru chanya” (positive liberty right) ni madai (u) aliyo nayo mtu wa kwanza (V) dhidi ya mtu wa pili (W), ambapo mtu wa pili anakuwa na wajibu wa kuacha kuingilia hiari ya mtu wa kwanza kufanya kitendo fulani (X), kwa ajili ya kujiwezesha kunufaika na tunu fulani iliyo stahiki yake (Y) kwa njia hiyo, kwa sababu ya kutokuwepo kwa kigezo (Z) kinachomzuia kufanya kitendo hicho.
• Haki ya “uhuru hasi” (negative liberty right) ni madai (U) aliyo nayo mtu wa kwanza (V) dhidi ya mtu wa pili (W), ambapo mtu wa pili anakuwa na wajibu wa kuacha kuingilia hiari ya mtu wa kwanza kuacha kufanya kitendo fulani (X), kwa ajili ya kujiwezesha kunufaika na tunu fulani iliyo stahiki yake (Y) kwa njia hiyo, kwa sababu ya kutokuwepo kwa kigezo (Z) kinachomlazimisha kufanya kitendo hicho.

Hata hivyo, wanazuoni wanatofautiana kuhusu sababu ya kuhalalisha uwepo wa madai yanayohusiana na haki husika.

Chimbuko la uhalali wa haki

Baadhi ya vigezo mbadala vinavyopendekezwa ni kanuni ya kimaadili inayotamka uwepo wa haki fulani (moral law), kanuni ya kibunge inayotamka uwepo wa haki fulani (positive law), heshima ya utu wa binadamu (human dignity), misukumo ya tamaa asilia za kiutu (natural human inclinations), tunu za kibinadamu (human goods), na mapatano ya vikao yanayozalisha mikataba ya kijamii yanayozingatia kanuni ya wengi wasikilizwe (human convention). (Juan Carlos Riofrío Martínez-Villalba(2023:33-44)

Lakini bado, wanazuoni wanakubaliana kuwa kama itawezekana kufanya mchujo wa kiakili unaotuwezesha kupata kanuni za maadili kutokana na kanuni thabiti za maumbili ya binadamu, hiyo itakuwa ni njia bora zaidi, maana tutapata kanuni za maadili ya kudumu kwa njia hiyo.

Hili ni pendekezo kuhusu hoja ya kuzalisha haki asilia kutokana na sifa ziaozpatikana katika "muundo asilia wa kibinadamu." Tuone pendekezo hili kwa kina.

Muundo asilia wa binadamu kama chimbuko la haki

Hii ni hoja inayopendekeza kuvuna haki asilia kutokana na muundo asilia wa binadamu. Yaani "an argument for natural rights from natural human design". Hoja hii inao muundo ufuatao:
An argument for natural rights from natural human design:

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human flourishing. (Angus Brook, 2019)
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.
4. A moral duty to avoid morally wrong acts entails a right of others to be free from morally wrong acts, while a moral duty to pursue morally good acts entails a right of others to enjoy morally good acts
5. Thus we have a right to be free from morally wrong acts and a right to enjoy morally good acts.

However, the claim that, there are basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human flourishing, requires clarification.

The above argument is teleological. It defines the morally right in terms of the axiologically good. This axiology highlights a range of basic goods. According to Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi (2019:64-67), six points come into play in understanding these goods and the fundamental moral standard to which they give rise.

First, there are "states of affairs" that we almost all find attractive. If someone does not find these states of affairs attractive, we would judge that person deficient.

For example, to care nothing for the core constituents of one's life is a pathology. These states of affairs are basic goods.

Second, basic goods include knowledge, friendship, sexual union and the care of one's children, beauty, self-direction in choosing a path in life, harmony with divine forces, bodily integrity, play or leisure, and life itself the foundation of the basic goods. These basic goods are the familiar ends of daily activity.

We can also distinguish between reflexive and substantive basic goods. We realize reflexive basic goods in our choices and actions; friendship is an example. The substantive good of life, however, is independent of specific actions on our part.

Third, without these basic goods, we cannot flourish by fulfilling or actualizing our natural potentials. Indeed, without the good of life, we do not exist.

Thus, the basic goods are within us as the central and inter-related components of our well-being as persons and as communities.

Fourth, it is rational to pursue these goods and irrational to attack them. For example, if asked why one is doing such-and-such, it is rational to answer in terms of these goods. "I am acting to gain knowledge, or to help a friend, build a family, make something beautiful."

Perhaps one is using the wrong means to do so, but to pursue such an end is always rational. So, too, it is irrational to attack a basic good.

Such declarations as the following border on the senseless: "I am acting to gain false beliefs, or to hurt a friend, ruin a family, destroy a work of beauty."

Fifth, these goods are incommensurable. A basic good is incommensurable in that it does not have any common measure with another basic good such that the two goods can be rank ordered. It is a mistake to say that knowledge is of greater worth than friendship or, indeed, the reverse.

It is a mistake to say that self-determination is of greater worth than life or, indeed, the reverse.

Accordingly, we misunderstand the basic goods if we suppose that it is reasonable intentionally to attack or undermine a basic good to gain another.

Unlike instrumental and external goods, basic goods are internal to the person. One can put a price on a book, but one cannot buy the knowledge it might provide.

Knowledge is within the knower. One can buy someone's time, but one cannot buy a friend. Friendship is within the friends who share it.

One can buy sexual access, but to ask the price of authentic sexual union is to misunderstand its nature.

One can buy a beautiful object but not the appreciation of its beauty. Beauty is not simply within the beholder, but apart from its personal appropriation, it becomes simply a physical pattern.

Because basic goods are incommensurable, consequentialist arguments that the end justifies the means fail.

Thus, to answer the rhetorical question, "If the ends do not justify the means, then what does?" we should distinguish between external and internal means.

Regarding the former, only the end justifies the means. An external means serves to achieve an end and, once it does so, remains separate or at least distinct from that end.

A carpenter drills a nail into a wall and, having done so, returns the drill to a rack.

A physician uses a stethoscope to listen to a patient's heart and, having done so, replaces the instrument in a cabinet. A student tapes a poster on a wall. The tape is attached to the poster but remains distinct from it.

And an internal means helps bring about an end and, in doing so, becomes a part of it. A lie told to fabricate evidence becomes a part of the fabrication.

Violence to foster revolution becomes a part of a revolutionary structure. When terrorists win control, their terror is institutionalized.

Thus, regarding internal means, it is by no means clear that the end justifies the means. Such means are the ends in their coming to be.

Sixth, it is rational (a) to be open to all the basic goods and (b) to act together to realize them. Moral reasoning is neither the prisoner of psychological egoism nor limited to instrumental calculation. Reason is not the slave of the passions.

In exploring these six characteristics of basic goods, we have explored a natural law axiology.

It contrasts with a deontology that puts the right before the good; it blocks a maximizing consequentialism. Natural law looks to the basic goods as the ends of moral action that leads to the flourishing of the human person.

Finally, understanding the basic goods leads to an account of the common good, a pivotal aspect of natural law and its social ethics.

The common good is the whole range of material and social conditions that enables us to pursue the basic goods, together with the basic goods themselves.

The achievement of basic goods depends on both the material and the social environment. Knowledge depends on, among other things, the tools of communication.

It also depends on language acquisition and the transmission of culture. Jacques Maritain offers us a rich inventory of the material and social conditions for political society.

They include the collection of public commodities and services - the roads, ports, schools, etc., which the organization of common life presupposes; a sound fiscal condition of the state and its military power; the body of just laws, good customs and wise institutions, which provide the nation with its structure; the heritage of its great historical remembrances, its symbols and its glories, and its living traditions and cultural treasures.

These constituents of the common good need coordination, and their sum or sociological integration" is greater than a mere collection of parts. Given this integration, moreover, each person can participate in the common good.

These things all are, in a certain measure communicable and so revert to each member, helping him to perfect his life and liberty of person.

Hivyo basi, kwa sababu ya muundo asilia wa kibinadamu, ni hitimisho la kimantiki kuwa, haki asilia sio kitu kilichobuniwa na watu, bali ni stahiki tunazozaliwa nazo na zinazotuwezesha kunufaika na "matunda" ya hazina asilia zilizo ndani ya asili yetu.

Hata hivyo, kulingana na kitabu cha J. Caleb Clanton na Kraig Martin(2022:3-48), mchakato wa kuvuna "kanuni za maadili asilia" kutoka kwenye "kanuni za maumbile" unaweza kufuata njia moja kati ya njia kuu mbili.

Njia ya kwanza inaitwa "the Old Natural Law methodology" inapendekeza kuvuna "kanuni za maadili asilia" kutoka kwenye "kanuni za maumbile," moja kwa moja kwa kutumia mchujo wa kimantiki wenye hatua mbili, kwa sababu ya imani kuwa maadili na maumbile ni kama pande mbili za sarafu moja.

Njia hii inakumbana na pingamizi linadai kuwa, kwenye hoja sanifu, "dokezo linalotaja kanuni ya kimaumbile" haliwezi kuzaa "hitimisho linalotaja kanuni ya kimaadili," kwani, haiwezekani kuvuna machungwa kutoka kwenye mwembe.

Yaani, kwa mujibu wa kanuni za kuunda hoja sanifu, hitimisho linapaswa kuwa na taarifa ambazo zinapatikana kwenye madokezo yaliyolitangulia.

Ndio kusema kuwa, kama hitimisho linaongelea taarifa za kimaadili, lazima kuwepo na angalau dokezo moja lenye kubeba taarifa za kimaadili.

Kwa Kimombo pingamizi hili ni hoja inayoitwa, "No-Direct-Ought-From-Is-Argument," au "NDOFI Argument" kwa kifupi.

Njia ya pili kwa ajili ya kuchuja kanuni za maadili kutokana na kanuni za maumbile inaitwa "the New Natural Law Methodology."

Njia hii inapendekeza kuchuja "kanuni za maadili asilia" kutoka kwenye "kanuni za maumbile" kwa njia ya mzunguko unaoanzia kwenye tunu, badala ya kuanzia kwenye kanuni za maumbile.

Tunu hizo ni uhai, urazini wa kimatendo, mazoezi, afya, maarifa ya ukweli, ukamilifu wa mwili, utulivu wa mwili na roho, na orodha inaendelea.

Njia hii inasema kuwa tunu hizi zinagunduliwa bila ulazima wa kujua chochote kuhusu kanuni za maumbile zinazofundishwa katika masomo ya bayolojia, kemia, fizikia na kadhalika. Kwa mtu anayeamini katika misingi ya urazini timamu, pendekezo hili ni kikwazo.

Baada ya kusoma kitabu cha J. Caleb Clanton na Kraig Martin(2022:3-48), na marejeo aliyoyatumia, na kufananisha na maandiko ya Julius Nyerere, wanazuoni wa Tanzania tulihitimisha kuwa, tunapaswa kutumia njia zote mbili kuzailisha kanuni za maadili asilia kutokana na kanuni za maumbile.

Yaani, mchakato wetu ni mchujo wa kimantiki wenye hatua tatu zifuatazo: dekezo kuu (major premise) linatokana na "the Old Natural Law methodology" inatupatia , dokezo dogo (minor premise) linatokana na "the New Natural Law Methodology", na hatimaye, kutokana na madokezo yaya mawili, tunapata hitimisho linalotupa kanuni za maadili tunazozitaka, zikiwa na sura ya haki na majukumu.

Kama tukiongelea "the Tanzanian natural law Methodology," tunapata mchakato wa kimantiki ufuatao kwa ajili ya kuchuja kanuni za kimaadili kutoka kwenye kanuni za kimaumbile:

The process of deriving prescriptive norms from natural norms entails the following steps:

1. Identify essential attributes of human nature: Natural law posits universal principles governing human conduct, often tied to human nature, which includes intelligence, free will, natural inclinations which are instrumental in the pursuit of human flourishing.
2. Identify basic goods of human nature: Reason reveals fundamental goods, such as life, knowledge, rationality, sociability, and procreation, which must be simultaneously respected as a precondition for integral human flourishing.
3. Formulate prohibitive obligations: Natural law dictates that we must not harm these basic goods (e.g., do not kill, do not steal) and should promote them.
4. Shift to Rights: A right emerges as the flip side of a prohibitive obligations; if it's wrong to kill, I have a right to life; if it's wrong to steal, I have a right to property.
5. Universalize human rights norms through legislation: These rights are not granted by governments but are inherent to being human, making them universal, inalienable, and a standard against which positive (human-made) laws are formulated and judged.

We can now apply this procedure of deductively deriving natural law norms from each of the common natural inclinations, to the following set of natural inclinations and their inherent human goods to derive norms of behavior:

(1) Natural inclination to the good as opposed to an aversion to the evil; (2) Natural inclination to preserve life as opposed to an aversion to intentionally causing death of an innocent person; (3) Natural inclination to preserve health as opposed to an aversion to sickness; (4) Natural inclination to copulation as opposed to an aversion to pedication; (5) Natural inclination to marital sex as opposed to an aversion to non-marital sex; (6) Natural inclination to knowledge of truth as opposed to an aversion to ignorance; (7) Natural inclination to social life as opposed to an aversion to solitude; (8) Natural inclination to self-integration as opposed to an aversion to self-disintegration; (9) Natural inclination to ownership as opposed to an aversion to material poverty; (10) Natural inclination to technological prosperity as opposed to an aversion to technological poverty; (11) Natural inclination to personal self-determination as opposed to an aversion to subjugation; (12) Natural inclination to order as opposed to an aversion to chaos; (13) Natural inclination to peace as opposed to an aversion to violence; (14) Natural inclination to coherence as opposed to an aversion to incoherence; (15) Natural inclination to cultural richness as opposed to cultural primitivity; (16) Natural inclination to the common good as opposed to an aversion to institutional evil; and (17) Natural inclination to religious knowledge of truth as opposed to an aversion to religious ignorance.

From (1) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing the good and avoid the evil, we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties;

1. Descriptive premise: Every action that fulfils human nature is good, where, the term “good” merely describes “something that is oriented toward the realization of the inherent tendencies or potentialities of a human being”.
2. Prescriptive premise: Any action that is oriented toward the realization of the inherent tendencies or potentialities of a human being and it is not violative of any basic human good, then it ought to be pursued practically, and its opposite avoided.
3. Prescriptive conclusion: Therefore, action which is oriented toward the realization of the inherent tendencies or potentialities of a human being is good, where, the term “good” is normative since it refers to “something that fulfills the inherent tendencies or potentialities of a human being and that ought to be pursued practically, and its opposite avoided.”
4. Highlighting correlation between rights and duties: What we ought to do/avoid doing is a duty that entails a corresponding right to be enjoyed by others.
5. Highlighting natural rights from natural duties: Thus, we have a natural right to enjoy morally good acts or avoid morally bad acts.

In other words, the natural law theory of human rights and duties proposes an argument, which deductively derives moral norms from natural facts through the above shown three-step argument, which can be paraphrased as follows:

1. The essential nature of a given class of entities called humans tells the entities to pursue a certain set of goods and avoid a corresponding set of bads, where, this is a is a descriptive premise stating "what is naturally pursued" ;
2. If the essential nature of a given class of entities called humans tells the entities to pursue a certain set of goods and such a pursuit is not violative of any basic human good, then they ought to conduct themselves in a manner that allows them to pursue those goods and avoid a corresponding set of bads, where, this is a prescriptive premise stating "what ought to be pursued";
3. Thus, entities in a given class called humans ought to to conduct themselves in a manner that allows them to flourish by pursuing a certain set of goods and avoid a corresponding set of bads, where, this is a deductive normative conclusion based on one descriptive premise and one prescriptive premise.
4. Humans who ought to naturally do and avoid certain acts are duty-bearers responsible for performing natural duties which correspond to natural rights to be enjoyed by other fellow humans, the latter being called right-holders.
5. Thus, humans have a natural right to perform some acts which allow them to flourish by pursuing a certain set of goods and avoiding a corresponding set of bads.

From (2) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing preserve life and avoid intentionally causing death of an innocent person ; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.
4. Acts of abortion, murder, authanasia, and extrajudicial killings, intentionally cause death of innocent persons.
5. Thus, we have a duty to avoid abortion, murder, authanasia, and extrajudicial killings.
6. A duty to avoid abortion, murder, authanasia, and extrajudicial killings entails the conclusion that, innocent persons have a right to be free from abortion, murder, authanasia, and extrajudicial killings.
7. Thus, innocent persons have a right to be free from abortion, murder, authanasia, and extrajudicial killings.

From (3) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing the preservation of the basic good of health and avoid causing sickness; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.
4. Acts of depriving medical care, food, sleep, and drinking water, are gateways to sickness and poor health.
5. Thus, we have a duty to avoid depriving others of medical care, food, sleep, and drinking water.
6. The duty to avoid depriving others of medical care, food, sleep, and drinking water entails the right to medical care, food, sleep, and drinking water.
7. Thus, others have a right to medical care, food, sleep, and drinking water.

From (4) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing copulation and avoiding pedication; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.
4. Acts of pedication, that is anal sexual acts, both homo-affective anal sex and hetero-affective anal sex, are gateways to anal bodily disintegrity, in so far as anal disfunction leading to anal incontinence, hence an impaired digestive system, is concerned.
5. Thus, we have a duty to avoid pedication by pursuing copulation so as to preserve anal bodily integrity, in so far as anal function of preventing incontinence, hence facilitating a digestive system intengrity, is concerned.
6. The duty to avoid pedication by pursuing copulation entails the right to be free from pedication and the right to pursue copulation.
7. Thus, we have a right to be free from pedication and the right to pursue copulation, that is, freedom from anal sexual acts, namely, both homo-affective anal sex and hetero-affective anal sex.

From (5) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing mariral sex and avoiding non-marital sex; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong. That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.
4. Non-marital sexual acts such as adultery and fornication are contrary to human flourishing through sexual intercourse since it promotes human objectification and existential body-self fragmentation.
5. Therefore, non-marital sex is morally wrong.
6. Moral obligations entail moral rights.
7. Thus, we have a right to be free from non-marital sex.

From (6) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing knowledge of truth and avoiding ignorance; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

From (7) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing social life and avoiding solitude; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.
4. An individual needs his body and life to fulfill the duties of social life through daily corporeal functions such as sports, farming, driving a car, writing a letter, and attending sick people. .
5. Thus, we have a duty to promote sociability by cultivating sociable relations with others and enabling each other to act as useful members of society by avoiding amputation of the bodies of each others or killing others without their consent.
6. The duty to promote sociability entails the right to be free from unwarranted bodily amputation and killing by others without one's consent.
7. Thus, we have a right to be free from bodily amputation and killing by others without one's consent.

From (8) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing self-integration aand avoiding self-disintegration; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

From (9) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing ownership and avoiding material poverty; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

From (10) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing technological prosperity and avoiding technological poverty; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

From (11) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing personal self-determination and avoiding subjugation; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

From (12) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing order and avoiding chaos; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

From (13) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing consentual peace and avoiding coercive peace; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.
4. Consensual peace, as opposed coercive peace, is the tranquility of non-coercive order arising from intentional respect, protection, fulfillment and facilitation of human rights, based on a predefined standard of justice, in such a way that all members of society are subjects of social, economic and political benefits and burdens based on a free and informed consent.
5. This, we have a duty to avoid coercive peace
6. The duty to avoid coercive peace entails the right to be free from coercive peace.
7. Thus, we have a right to be free from coercive peace which entails the right to consensual peace.

From (14) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing coherence and avoiding incoherence; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

From (15) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing cultural richness as opposed to cultural primitivity; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

From (16) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing the common good and avoiding institutional evil; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

And from (17) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing religious knowledge of truth and avoiding religious ignorance; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

VI. MATOKEO YA UTAFITI

Majibu kwa Swali la (1): Ni kweli kwamba viongozi wa TEC kwamba hawajui maana ya sheria wala umuhimu wake katika kuendesha nchi yenye dini nyingi?

Jibu: Sio kweli kwamba viongozi wa TEC kwamba hawajui maana ya sheria wala umuhimu wake katika kuendesha nchi yenye dini nyingi? Historia ya mchango wa Kanisa Katoliki katika mvuvumko wa sheria za dunia hii iko bayana.

Kanisa Katoliki linaamini kwamba lilianzishwa na Yesu Kristo mwenyewe, ambaye aliwapa mitume wake, hasa Petro, mamlaka ya kuongoza kanisa.

Petro anachukuliwa kuwa papa wa kwanza, na mamlaka yake ilipitishwa kwa warithi wake. Kanisa lilianza rasmi siku ya Pentekoste ya kwanza baada ya kifo cha Yesu, ambapo mitume walipokea Roho Mtakatifu na kuanza kuhubiri Injili.

Andiko linalotumika kuhalalisha Petro kuwa papa wa kwanza ni Mathayo 16:15-19. Hivyo, Kanisa Katoliki linaamini kwamba Petro alikuwa kiongozi wa mitume na kwamba mamlaka yake ilipitishwa kwa warithi wake, ambao ni mapapa.

Tangu wakati huo, Kanisa Katoliki hufanya kazi kama mtendaji wa kipekee, mwenye ushawishi, na asiye wa serikali katika mfumo wa kisheria wa kimataifa hasa kupitia Jimbo Kuu la Roma ambalo lina utu wa kisheria unaotambulika kimataifa.

Kama chombo huru, Jimbo Kuu la Roma hufanya kazi kama mamlaka ya maadili na mtendaji wa kidiplomasia anayeshiriki katika kuunda sheria za kimataifa na majadiliano ya haki za binadamu.

Katika muktadha wa mfumo wa sheria asilia za kidunia, Kanisa Katoliki hufanya kazi kama mlezi wa maadili, mwananadharia wa msingi, na sauti ya ukosoaji inayotetea uwepo wa ukweli halisi wa maadili unaopatikana kwa njia ya akili ya kibinadamu.

Ingawa mifumo ya kidunia mara nyingi huweka sheria kulingana na makubaliano ya watu binafsi au mikataba ya kijamii, Kanisa Katoliki linasisitiza kwamba sheria asilia ni utaratibu ambao haukuundwa na watu ambao hutumika kama kizio muhimu cha sheria zilizotungwa na binadamu, hasa kuhusu ulinzi wa haki za binadamu, maisha, na familia. Kanisa linatekeleza majukumu haya kwa njia kadhaa, zikiwemo:

Mpendekezaji wa Ukweli wa Maadili Huru Ulimwenguni: Kanisa linafundisha kwamba sheria ya asili "imeandikwa mioyoni mwa wanadamu" na Mungu na inaeleweka kwa akili ya kibinadamu, na sio kwa imani tu.

Katika jamii ya kidunia, Kanisa linatumia kanuni hii kusema kwamba ukweli fulani wa maadili—kama vile kukataza mauaji, wizi, au ulinzi wa familia—si mafundisho ya kidini tu bali ni ukweli wa kimantiki, wa ulimwengu wote unaowahusu watu wote, bila kujali imani.

Wakala wa "Akili ya Umma": Kanisa linasema kwamba mafundisho yake ya kijamii yanategemea akili ya binadamu inayoangaziwa na imani, na hivyo kuifanya sauti yake iwe muhimu katika jamii za kidunia, zenye wingi wa mitazamo ya kifalsafa, na za kidemokrasia.

Kanisa linajaribu kuhemea fikra zinazounga mkono sheria ya asili kutoka kwa watu wengine, likilenga kutumia njia hiyo kuishawishi jamii ya kidunia kwamba desturi fulani zinazoharibu "manufaa ya wote" zinapaswa kuepukwa.

Msingi wa Kihistoria na Kiakili: Kanisa linadumisha mbinu ya sheria ya asili ya "jadi", iliyojikita katika mafundisho ya Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), ambayo inapingana na nadharia za kisasa za sheria ya asili ya "kidunia" ambazo mara nyingi hupuuza dhana ya "mpangilio ulioumbwa".

Kanisa linashikilia kwamba sheria ya asili ni "ushiriki katika sheria ya milele" iliyoandikwa katika akili ya Mungu.

Kwa kuhifadhi mapokeo haya, Kanisa hufanya kazi kama daraja kati ya mawazo ya kisheria ya kimapokeo na ya kisasa, hasa kupitia taasisi kama vile Akademia za Kipapa.

Kwa hiyo, Kanisa Katoliki ambaye ni Mwalimu Mkuu wa sheria hapa duniani, haliwezi kuwa taasisi isiyojua maana wala umuhimu wa sheria, kama Rais Samia anavyotaka kuuaminisha umma.

Majibu kwa Swali la (2): Kama ukuta wa kikatiba inaopaswa kutenganisha "mambo ya kidini" na "mambo ya kisiasa", ni kama "chekecheo" ambalo linapaswa kutusaidia kutambua haki za taasisi za kidini dhidi ya taasisi za kisiasa ni zipi?

Jibu: Haki za taasisi za kidini dhidi ya taasisi za serikali ni hizi hapa:

• Haki ya kufundisha juu ya maarifa ya vitu asilia (existential beliefs), yaani imani kuhusu vitu vilivyopo na visivyokuwepo ulimwenguni, ikiwa vitu hivyo vinaweza kuonekana na kugusika.
• Haki ya kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya tunu asilia (evaluative beliefs), ikiwa tunu hizo zinaweza kugunduliwa bila ulazima wa kuangalia kwenye misahafu, kama vile heshima ya kiutu, uhai, afya, maarifa, ukweli, urazini, urafiki, utajiri, uhuru na ustawi.
• Na haki ya kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya maadili asilia (normative beliefs), ikiwa maadili hayo yanaweza kugunduliwa bila ulazima wa kuangalia kwenye misahafu, kama vile mfumo wa maadili asillia na haki za binadamu zilizomo kwenye Tangazo la Dunia Kuhusu Haki za Binadamu.
• Haki ya kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya vitu asilia (existential beliefs), yaani imani kuhusu vitu vilivyopo na visivyokuwepo ulimwenguni, hata kama uwepo wa vitu hivyo hauwezi kutambuliwa kwa njia ya kufikiri, kuona na kugusa, bali kwa kuanfalia kwenye misahafu au mapokeo ya kisekta, mfano mizimu, majini, malaika, mbingu, ahera, kuzimu, miungu na Mungu.
• Haki ya kufundisha kuhusu maarida ya tunu asilia (evaluative beliefs), hata kama ni lazima kuzigundua tunu hizo kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu, mfano ukiwa ni wokovu, uzima wa milele, ibada, sala, na upendo.
• Na haki ya kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya maadili asilia (normative beliefs), hata kama ni lazima kugundua maadili hayo kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu, mfano ukiwa ni taratibu za ibada, mavazi, na mapishi ya vyakula.

Haki hizi za kidini zinaambatana na majukumu ya taasisi za kidini yafuatayo:

• Jukumu la kidini la kujizuia kuitaka serikali kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya vitu asilia (existential beliefs), yaani imani kuhusu vitu vilivyopo na visivyokuwepo ulimwenguni, pale ambapo uwepo wa vitu hivyo hauwezi kutambuliwa kwa njia ya kufikiri, kuona na kugusa, bali kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu au mapokeo ya kisekta.
• Jukumu la kidini la kujizuia kuitaka serikali kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya tunu asilia (evaluative beliefs), pale ambapo ni lazima kuzigundua tunu hizo kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu, na sio vinginevyo.
• Na Jukumu la kidini la kujizuia kuitaka serikali kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya maadili asilia (normative beliefs), pale ambapo ni lazima kugundua maadili hayo kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu, na sio vinginevyo.

Majibu kwa Swali la (3): Kama ukuta wa kikatiba inaopaswa kutenganisha "mambo ya kidini" na "mambo ya kisiasa", ni kama "chekecheo" ambalo linapaswa kutusaidia kutambua haki za taasisi za kisiasa dhidi ya taasisi za kidini ni zipi?

Jibu: Haki za taasisi za kisiasa dhidi ya taasisi za kidini ni hizi hapa:

• Haki ya serikali kutolazimishwa na taasisi za kidini kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya vitu asilia (existential beliefs), yaani imani kuhusu vitu vilivyopo na visivyokuwepo ulimwenguni, pale ambapo uwepo wa vitu hivyo hauwezi kutambuliwa kwa njia ya kufikiri, kuona na kugusa, bali kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu au mapokeo ya kisekta.
• Haki ya serikali kutolazimishwa na taasisi za kidini kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya tunu asilia (evaluative beliefs) pale ambapo ni lazima kuzigundua tunu hizo kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu, na sio vinginevyo.
• Na haki ya serikali kutolazimishwa na taasisi za kidini kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya maadili asilia (normative beliefs) pale ambapo ni lazima kugundua maadili hayo kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu, na sio vinginevyo.

Hizi haki za kisiasa zinakwenda na majukumu ya kisiasa yafuatayo:

• Jukumu la kisiasa la kujizuia kuminya haki ya kidini ya kufundisha kuhusu imaarifa ya vitu asilia (existential beliefs), yaani imani kuhusu vitu vilivyopo na visivyokuwepo ulimwenguni, hata kama uwepo wa vitu hivyo lazima ugunfuliwe kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu, kwa sababu haviwezi kugunduliwa kwa kuona wala kugusa.
• Jukumu la kisiasa la kujizuia kuminya haki ya kidini ya kufundisha kuhusu maadili ya tunu asilia (evaluative beliefs) hata kama tunu hizo ni lazima zigunduliwe kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu.
• Jukumu la kisiasa la kujizuia kuminya haki ya kidini ya kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya maadili asilia (normative beliefs)hata kama maadili hayo ni lazima yagunduliwe kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu.

Majibu kwa Swali la (4): Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia ni yapi na yalibeba maudhui gani?

Jibu: Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia yalibeba maudhui yanayotokana na mfumo wa amri kumi za Mungu kama ukitumika pamoja na mfumo wa maadili asilia kama ifuatavyo:

Wakristo wapatao bilioni 2.5 duniani kote, sawa na 37% ya watu wote duniani, wanaunganishwa na mafundisho ya kidini ("religious doctrine") yanayoweza kufupishwa katika matamko matatu bila kubaki, kama ifuatavyo:

1. Maarifa kuhusu ukweli juu ya Mungu, Mazingira na Watu na uhusiano kati ya pande hizi tatu, kama yalivyofupishwa kwenye Kanuni za Imani kama vile Kanuni ya Imani ya Mitume, Kanuni ya Imani ya Athanazi, Kanuni ya Imani ya Nikea, na kadhalika (Credenda).
2. Malengo yanayopaswa kuombewa kwa Mungu, katika matumaini, ili mahusiano kati ya Mungu, Mazingira na Watu yaimarike, kama yalivyofupishwa kwenye Sala ya Baba Yetu (Speranda).
3. Na, majukumu yanayopaswa kutekelezwa ili kuonyesha upendo kwa vitendo, kwa ajili ya kudumisha mahusiano mema kati ya Mungu, Mazingira na Watu, kama yalivyofupishwa kwenye Amri Kumi za Mungu (Agenda).

Hivyo, Katekisimu zote za Ukristo zinaongelea na kufafanua mambo haya matatu, kwa kutumia lugha tofauti na mpangilio tofauti.

Ajenda ya Taasisi za dini ya Ukristo, likiwemo Kanisa Katoliki, yaani Amri Kumi za Mungu wa Biblia, inavyo vipengele vifuatavyo:

1. Mwabudu Mungu mmoja aliyeumba Ulimwengu na anayepigania heshima ya utu wa kila binadamu (Kutoka 20:2-8)
2. Fanya kazi kwa siku sita za wiki kwa kutumia mbinu za sayansi na tekinolojia mamboleo (Kutoka 20:9)
3. Pumzika kazi zote siku ya saba (Kutoka 20:10-11)
4. Waheshimu wazazi wako walioasisi familia yako (Kutoka 20:12)
5. Usiue mtu yeyote asiye na hatia wala kuua jina lake zuri kwa kumpaka matope (Kutoka 20:13)
6. Usizini na mke wa jirani yako yeyote, mahali popote na wakati wowote (Kutoka 20:14)
7. Usiibe mali wala kuiba mtu kwa kumteka na kumpoteza (Kutoka 20:15)
8. Usimdanganye mtu yeyote, mahali popote, wakati wowote, na kwa njia yoyote (Kutoka 20:16)
9. Usitamani mke wala kitu chochore cha jirani yako yeyote, mahali popote na wakati wowote (Kutoka 20:17)
10. Usitende uovu kama mbinu ya kufanikisha lengo jema (Kutoka 20:2-18)

Kiteolojia, hizi amri kumi zinataja majukumu ya Mkristo ambayo yanaweza kufupishwa katika majukumu makuu matatu (Mathayo 22:36-40).Yaani:

• Jukumu la Kumpenda Mungu, kwa maana kwamba Mungu anayo haki ya kupendwa;
• Jukumu la Kumpenda jirani, kwa maana kwamba kila jirani anayo haki ya kupendwa, ambayo ni haki iliyo kikonyo cha haki zote baki; na
• Jukumu la kuyapenda mazingira yaliyo rafiki kwa ustawi wa kila mtu na jirani yake; kwa maana kwamba mazingira yanayo haki ya kutunzwa.

Kumpenda mtu ni kufanya kitendo chochote kinachomsogeza karibu na mema ya kiutu au kumsukuma mbali na mabaya ya kiutu, na hivyo, kukuza na kuhami tunu za kiutu.

Majibu kwa Swali la (5): Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kweli yanavuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, kama Rais Samia alivyodokeza?

Jibu: Mfumo wa maadili ya kimisahafu, kwa sehemu kubwa, unakubaliana na mfumo wa maadili asilia, wenye kuongozwa na msukumo wa tamaa asilia ya kufukuzia mema na kukwela maovu.

Yaani, kuna “mlaliano,” yaani “intersection,” kati ya mfumo wa maadili asilia yanayotambuliwa na katiba ya nchi na mfumo wa maadili ya kimisahafu.

Kwa sehemu kubwa, “mlaliano” huo ndio unaunda maudhui ya matamko yote ya TEC. Hivyo, matamko haya yako ndani ya uzio wa mamlaka ya TEC na hayaruki ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa.

Hivyo malalamiko ya Rais Samia, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga, Elia Phaustine Kabote, na Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura ni malalamiko hewa.

Majibu kwa Swali la (6): Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kweli yanavuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaotenganisha mambo ya kidini yanayowahusu TEC na mambo ya kidini yanayozihusu taasisi baki za kidini, kama Rais Samia alivyodai?

Jibu: Kuna “mlaliano,” yaani “intersection,” kati ya mfumo wa maadili asilia yanayotambuliwa na katiba ya nchi na mifumo ya maadili ya kimisahafu inayotumiwa na dini mbalimbali.

Yaani, mfumo wa maadili asilia ni kigawe kidogo cha shirika kati ya dini na dini, madhehebu na madhehebu.

Ndio kusema kuwa, mfumo wa maadili asilia ni kama uzi unaounganisha shanga za tasbihi, ambapo kila punje inawakilisha madhehebu fulani ya kidini.

Kwa kuwa mfumo wa maadili asilia ndio unaunda kiini cha maudhui ya matamko yote ya TEC, matamko hayo hayapokonyi haki za kidini za dini baki. Badala yake yanaziimarisha na kuziunganisha.

Kwa ujumla, matamko ya TEC yako ndani ya uzio wa mamlaka ya TEC na hayaruki ukuta unaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa.

Hii maana yake ni kwamba, malalamiko ya Rais Samia, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga, Elia Phaustine Kabote, na Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura ni malalamiko hewa.

Majibu kwa Swali la (7): Je, kuna muumini yeyote wa Kanisa Katoliki ambaye anapaswa kukerwa na Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kiasi kwamba anastahili kuwasilisha malalamiko rasmi dhidi ya TEC mbele ya Balozi wa Papa, kama wanavyodai kina Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura?

Jibu: Kwa kuwa, matamko ya TEC yako ndani ya uzio wa mamlaka ya TEC na hayaruki ukuta unaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, hakuna muumini yeyote wa Kanisa Katoliki ambaye anapaswa kukerwa na Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia.

Majibu kwa Swali la (8): Ni kweli kwamba vijana waliodai kuandika barua ya malalamiko dhidi ya Padre Kitima kwenda kwa Papa ni "malofa" kwa maana ya “waasi waliosaliti sauti ya dhamiri zao na kugeuka bendera fuata upepo"?

Jibu: Ndio, ni "malofa" kwa maana ya “waasi waliosaliti sauti ya dhamiri zao na kugeuka bendera fuata upepo". Ni hivyo kwa kuwa, matamko ya TEC yako ndani ya uzio wa mamlaka ya TEC na hayaruki ukuta unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa. Na kwa sababu hii hakuna Mkristo anayesikiliza sauti ya dhamiri yake anapaswa kukerwa na Matamko hayo nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia.

Kwa hakika, napendekeza kwamba, hata watu wanaowatetea na watu waliowatuma ni maadui wa "imani ya Kikristo".

Na kuhusu tamko kwamba wahusika ni "malofa," tuanzie kwenye maana ta neno "lofa." Kwa mujibu wa Baba wa Taifa, Julius Nyerere, "lofa" ni mtu mzururaji, mtu asiye na kazi maalum, ba hivyo mtu anayejikomba kwa watu ili kupata mkate wake wa kila siku.

Mpaka sasa watuhumiwa hawajakanusha tuhuma dhidi yao kwa kusema wanafanya kazi gani na wapi. Kwa hiyo, tuhuma hii itanedelea kusimama mpaka watakapoleta ushahidi wa kukanusha.

Majibu kwa Swali la (9): Na, Je, ni nafuu gani ambayo kila pande katika mzozo huu, yaani serikali, Kanisa Katoliki na umma mpana, unastahili?

Jibu: Kwa upande wa serikali, Rais Samia, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga, Elia Phaustine Kabote, na Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura wanastahili kuliomba msamaha Kanisa Katoliki.

Kwa upande wa Kanisa katoliki, linawajibika kuwasamehe Rais Samia, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga, Elia Phaustine Kabote, na Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura, kwa kuwa hawajui walitendalo.

Lakini Kanisa katoliki lisiishie hapo. Linapaswa kukusanya "matamko manane ya TEC" aliyoyaongelea Rais Samia, kuyachapisha kama kitabu kimoja, na kuwasambazia waumini ili kuweka kumbukumbu sawa.

Kwa upande wa Bunge, tunapaswa kutunga sheria ya Bunge ili kunyoosha mambo na kuufanya ukweli wote juu ya mahusiano kati ya dini na dola udhihirike kisheria, badala ya kusinga mbele kwa kubahatisha kama tunavyofanya sasa hivi.

Na kwa upande wa AZAKI, tunapaswa kuanzisha elimu ya uraia (civic education) kwa ajili ya kufundisha watanzania kuhusu misingi ya maadili asilia, ambayo ndio kigawe kidogo cha shirika kati ya dini zote, kila dini ikiwa na upekee wake.

VII. HITIMISHO NA MAPENDEKEZO

Tamko hili limeandaliwa kwa ajili ya kujibu swali: Matamko Gani ya TEC yanayodaiwa kuvuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, na kama kweli yalivuka ukuta huo ni kwa kiasi gani yalivuka ukuta huo?

Baada ya utafiti wa kina, natoa jawabu kamilifu lenye kujibu swali hili kwa kuonyesha mambo matatu makuu.

Mosi, ingawa serikali ya jamhuri inayofuata mfumo wa haki na majukumu asilia lazima ifanye kazi bila kuegemea upande wowote wa kidini, na hivyo kuheshimu ukuta unaotenganisha dini na serikali, bado ukweli ufuatao unasimama:

1. Kwamba, waumini binafsi wakiongozwa na "Seti Kuu ya Sheria Zinazoratibu Malimwengu" au sheria ya maadili asilia inayotokana na sheria kuu tajwa, bado wako huru kuleta mafundishio ya imani zao kuhusu maasili asilia, kama yanavyofundishwa na viongozi wao wa kidini, kwenye uwanja wa siasa na kushawishi utungaji wa sera za serikali unaozingatia mafundisho haya;
2. Kwamba, viongozi wa kidini, huku wakiwa wanatekeleza wajibu wao wa kimaadili na kikatiba wa kutetea haki za asilia za wafuasi wao, kama wanavyozisoma kutoka kwenye "Seti Kuu ya Sheria Zinazoratibu Malimwengu" au sheria ya maadili asilia inayotokana na sheria kuu tajwa, wanalazimika kukosoa moja kwa moja sera za serikali zinazokiuka haki asilia za waumini wao na raia baki wanaoweza kuwa waumini wao katika siku za usoni;
3. Na kwamba, serikali, huku ikitekeleza wajibu wake wa kikatiba wa kutetea haki za asili za raia, huku ikiwa inazisoma kutoka kkwenye katiba ya nchi, inawajibika kukosoa moja kwa moja sera za kidini zinazokiuka haki hizo.

Pili, ni kweli kwamba, kupitia utekelezaji wa sera za utekaji, utesaji, mauaji ya raia, na uporaji wa rasilimali za Taifa, serikali imevunja haki asilia za raia; na hivyo kuwapa sababu viongozi wa dini, wakimwemo viongozi wa Kanisa Katoliki, kukosoa na kupinga sera hizo, kwa sababu ni haramu kwa mujibu wa sheria ya maadili asilia, inayotambuliwa kikatiba, na wanayopaswa kuitetea kwa mujibu wa mamlaka yao kama viongozi wa dini. Hivyo, tofauti na madai ya Rais Samia, matamko ya viongozi wa Kanisa Katoliki hayajavuka ukuta wa kikatiba na kisheria unaotenganisha mambo ya dini na mambo ya siasa.

Na tatu, ni hitimisho kwamba, majibu ya serikali kwa viongozi wa dini, wakimwemo viongozi wa Kanisa Katoliki, wanaokosoa sera za serikali zinazokiuka sheria ya maadili asilia, na hivyo kuvunja katiba ya nchi, ni majibu yanayolwepa hoja ya msingi, na kuongelea mambo yaliyo nje ya mjadala.

Hatimaye napendkeza kuwa, serikali inapaswa kuukubali ukweli unaotokana na utafiti hii na kujisahihisha, maana "Ukweli utatuweka huru" (Yohana 8:32).

VIII. MAREJEO MUHIMU

1. Angus Brook (2019), The Metaphysical Foundations of the Natural Law tradition (Presentation Paper) --Attached
2. Anver Emon, Matthew Levering na David Novak (2014), Natural Law: A Jewish, Christian and Islamic Trialogue (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press).
3. J. Caleb Clanton and Kraig Martin (2022), Nature and Command: On the Metaphysical Foundations of Morality (Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press),
4. JMT, Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania (1977), available onlie at National Audit Office website.
5. John Finnis (2011), Natural Law and Natural Rights (New York: Oxford University Press Inc)--Attached
6. John Stuart Mackenzie (2004), A Manual of Ethics (Kessinger Publishing).
7. Juan Carlos Riofrío Martínez-Villalba(2023), How to Deduce Human Rights From Natural Law and Other Disciplines, Ius Humani, 12.II:27-52, at 33-44 --Attached
8. Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi(2019), (Eds.), Metaphysics of Human Rights 1948-2018: On the Occasion of the 70th Anniversary of the UDHR (Delaware, USA: Vernon Art and Science)
9. Manuel G. Velasquez (2014:96-111), 7th Edition, Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases (London, UK: Pearson Education Ltd) --Attached
10. Matt Weisfeld(2008), The Object-Oriented Thought Process (Pearson Education)
11. Mellisa Moschella (2025), Ethics, politics and natural law principles for human flourishing (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press)--Attached
12. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part" (Prima Secundae), Question 90, Articles. 1 and 3.
13. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra Gentiles, Book 3, Chapter 114.
14. URT, Employment and Labour Relations Act No. 6 of 2004 (Chapter 366, RE 2023)
15. URT, Penal Code, Chapter 16 RE 2023
16. URT, Political Parties Act, Chapter 258, RE 2023
17. URT, Societies Act, Chapter 337 RE 2023.
18. Wayne Harry Lott(2016), Human Participation in the Eternal Law through the Natural Law in the Thought of Thomas Aquinas and Bernard Lonergan: Transpositions from a Classical to a Modern Mindset. A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Regis College and the Theology Department of the Toronto School of Theology In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael’s College--Attached
19. William S. Brewbaker III (2006), Thomas Aquinas and the Metaphysics of Law, Alabama Law Review, 58:575ff.
20. William S. Brewbaker III, What Is Christian Legal Thought, 2 J. Christian Legal Thought 5 (2012).Available at: What Is Christian Legal Thought

 

[Lord Denning]

Unaua raia, unawateka, vikosi vyako vinafira watu na kuwapoteza wengine.

Watu wakisema kudai haki zao za msingi unasingizia eti udini.

Huyu kibibi ni mpumbavu sijawahi ona.

Ni vile tu Taifa letu ni kama limelaaniwa maana waliopaswa kutuondolea huyu shetani nao wamepigwa upofu kwa ujinga na vipande vya fedha.

 

[PureView zeiss]

Biblia imasema "mwanamke mpumbavu hubomoa nyumba yake mwenyewe Kwa mikono yake"
Yule Maza ni mpumbavu sawa na maandiko yanavyosema

 

[Pulchra Animo]

View attachment 3523155

SWALI KWA RAIS SAMIA: MATAMKO GANI YA TEC YALIVUKA UKUTA WA KIKATIBA UNAOPASWA KUTENGANISHA MAMBO YA KIDINI NA MAMBO YA KISIASA?​

I. UTANGULIZI

Tarehe 30 Aprili 30 2025, saa 4 usiku, Padre Kitima alijeruhiwa na watu wasiojulikana akiwa ndani ya eneo la Makao Makuu ya TEC, Kurasini, Dar es Salaam, ambako pia ndipo yalipo makazi yake rasmi.

Tarehe 02 Desemba 2025, Rais Samia akiwa anaongea na wazee wa Dar es Salaam, alidai kwamba, kupitia matamko nane yaliyotolewa na TEC tangu 2021, Kanisa Katoliki linavuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa nchini Tanzania.

Tarehe 22 Disemba 2025 watu wawili, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga na Elia Phaustine Kabote, waliojitambulisha kuwa ni waumini wa Kanisa Katoliki nchini Tanzania walidai kuwasilisha barua ya malalamiko dhidi ya Padri Charles Kitima kwa Balozi wa Vatican nchini Tanzania.

Wanadai kwamba Padri Kitima, ambaye pia ni Katibu Mkuu wa TEC, anavuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, kwa sababu anafanya kazi kama mshauri wa kisiasa wa CHADEMA kuhusu umuhimu na ulazima wa kufanua siasa zinazozingatia tunu na maadili ya kiutu.

Tarehe 25 Desemba 2025, akitoa homilia wakati wa Adhimisho la Misa Takatifu Parokiani Goba, Askofu Mkuu wa Jimbo Kuu Katoliki la Dar es Salaam, Jude Thaddeus Ruwaichi, aliongelea jambo hili.

Alisema kwamba kundi la vijana waliodai kuwa Wakatoliki na kuandika barua ya malalamiko dhidi ya Padri Charles Kitima kwenda kwa Balozi wa Vatican nchini Tanzania, sio Wakristo wa kweli bali ni malofa, wapumbavu, waganga njaa, wanafiki na wasaliti wa imani.

Tarehe 27 Desemba 2025, barua ya wazi kwa Balozi wa Papa juu ya kauli ya Askofu Ruwa’ichi, isiyoonyesha jina la mwandishi, ilisambzwa kwenye mitandao ya kijamii. Barua hiyo ilibeba kichwa cha maneno, “malalamiko rasmi dhidi ya kauli na utaratibu wa Askofu Mkuu Yuda Thaddeus Ruwaichi wa Jimbo Kuu la Dar Es Salaam kwenda kwa Balozi wa Papa.”

Mwandishi alimwomba Papa kuchunguza mwenendo wa Askofu Ruwaichi ambao alidai unaenda kinyume na misingi ya Kikanuni, Kiliturujia, na kimaadili kwa kuingilia Mamlaka ya Vatican (Canon 1417), kudharauliwa kwa Alama ya Imani (Rozari Takatifu), kupotosha mafundisho ya Amani na Haki, na kutumia lugha ya dharau dhidi ya Waumini walioitwa "Malofa" (Canon 220).

Na tarehe 30 Desemba 2025, Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura, ambaye ni mseminari wa zamani aliyefukuzwa na Kanisa katoliki kwa sababu ya utovu wa nidhamu, alikutana na waandishi wa habari na kumlaumu Askofu Ruwaichi kwa kukiuka kifungu namba 212(3) cha sheria za Kanisa katoliki, kinachowapa waumini haki ya kuhoji utendaji kazi wa wakuu wa kanisa, pale wanapokosa haki zao za kidini kama waumini.

Baada ya kutafakari kwa makini matamshi ya umma yanayoendelea, ambayo yamechochewa na uhusiano tata kati ya TEC na Serikali nchini Tanzania, nimeamua kutoa maoni binafsi, katika mfumo wa dokezo la “amicus curiae.”

Jukumu la dokezo hili ni kuwasaidia wadau katika kufanya maamuzi sahihi kwa kuhakikisha kwamba ushahidi na hoja zote muhimu zinawasilishwa kwao ipasavyo katika mfumo unaoweza kupokelewa na akili za watu wote.

II. VIINI VYA MVUTANO

Hivyo basi, dokezo hili linatoa mtazamo wa kiufundi kuhusu maswali yafuatayo yanayobishaniwa, yaani:

(1) Katika maisha ya watu, ukuta wa kikatiba inaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo za kisiasa hauwezi kutenganisha mambo yapi?

(2) Katika maisha ya watu, ukuta wa kikatiba inaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo za kisiasa unaweza kutenganisha mambo gani?

(3) Matamko manane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia ni yapi na yalibeba maudhui gani?

(4) Matamko manne ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kweli yanavuka mipaka ya kikatiba inayotenganisha mambo ya kidini kidini na mambo ya kiserikali, kama Rais Samia alivyodokeza?

(5) Matamko manne ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kweli yanavuka mipaka ya kikatiba inayotenganisha mambo ya kidini yanayowahusu TEC na mambo ya kidini yanayozihusu taasisi baki za kidini, kama Rais Samia alivyodokeza?

(6) Je, kuna muumini yeyote wa Kanisa Katoliki ambaye anapaswa kukerwa na Matamko manane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kiasi kwamba anastahili kuwasilisha malalamiko rasmi dhidi ya TEC mbele ya Balozi wa Papa, kama wanavyodai kina Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura?

(7) Vijana waliodai kuandika barua ya malalamiko dhidi ya Padre Kitima kwenda kwa Papa ni “malofa” kweli?

(8) Na, Je, ni tuzo gani ambayo kila pande katika mzozo huu unastahili?

III. MSINGI WA KIKATIBA NA KISHERIA

Nchini Tanzania, mahusiano kati ya taasisi za dini na serikali yanaratibiwa kwa kuzingatia mwongozo wa kikatiba unaopatikana katika ibara ya 9(g), 13(5), 19(1), 19(2) na 19(3). Ibara hizi zinasomeka kama ifuatavyo:

"9(g) Kwa hiyo, Mamlaka yaNchi na vyombo vyake vyote vinawajibika kuelekeza sera nashughuli zake zote katika lengo la kuhakikisha... kwamba Serikali na vyombo vyake vyote vya ummavinatoa nafasi zilizo sawa kwa raia wote, wake kwawaume, bila ya kujali rangi, kabila, dini au hali yamtu"

"13(5) Kwa madhumuni ya ufafanuzi wa masharti ya ibara hiineno "kubagua" maana yake ni kutimiza haja, haki au mahitajimengineyo kwa watu mbalimbali kwa kuzingatia utaifa wao,kabila, pahala walipotokea, maoni yao ya kisiasa, rangi, dini, jinsia au hali yao ya maisha kwa namna ambayo watu wa ainafulani wanafanywa au kuhesabiwa kuwa dhaifu au duni nakuwekewa vikwazo au masharti ya vipingamizi ambapo watu waaina nyingine wanatendewa tofauti au wanapewa fursa au faidailiyoko nje ya masharti au sifa za lazima, isipokuwa kwamba neno"kubagua" halitafafanuliwa kwa namna ambayo itaizuia Serikalikuchukua hatua za makusudi zenye lengo la kurekebishamatatizo katika jamii."

"19(1) Kila mtu anastahili kuwa na uhuru wa mawazo, imanina uchaguzi katika mambo ya dini, pamoja na uhuru wa mtukubadilisha dini au imani yake."

"19(2) Bila ya kuathiri sheria zinazohusika za Jamhuri yaMuungano, kazi ya kutangaza dini, kufanya ibada na kuenezadini itakuwa ni huru na jambo la hiari ya mtu ya binafsi, nashughuli na uendeshaji wa jumuiya za dini zitakuwa nje yashughuli za mamlaka ya nchi."

"19(3) Kila palipotajwa neno 'dini' katika ibara hii ifahamikekwamba maana yake ni pamoja na madhehebu ya dini, namaneno mengineyo yanayofanana au kuambatana na neno hilonayo yatatafsiriwa kwa maana hiyo."

Lakini, hakuna sheria maalum iliyotungwa na Bunge kwa ajili ya kufafanua vifungu hivi vya kikatiba.

IV. MAJIBU YA KITAFITI

Majibu kwa Swali la (1): Katika maisha ya watu, ukuta wa kikatiba inaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo za kisiasa hauwezi kutenganisha mambo yapi?

Jibu: Ukuta wa kikatiba inaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo za kisiasa hauwezi kutenganisha mambo kadhaa katika maeneo yafuatayo: imani kuhusu vitu vinayoonekana na visivyoonekana (existential beliefs), imani kuhusu tunu za kiutu (evaluative values), na imani kuhusu maadili ya kiutu (normative beliefs). Ufafanuzi unafuata.

Kuhusu Imani juu ya vitu vinayoonekana na visivyoonekana (existential beliefs): Imani ya kisiasa na imani ya kidini, kwa pamoja, zinatambua uwepo wa vitu vinayoonekana na kugusika.

Kuhusu Imani juu ya tunu za kiutu (evaluative values): Imani ya kisiasa na imani ya kidini, kwa pamoja, zinatambua uwepo wa “tunu za kiutu,” zinazoweza kugunduliwa bila kuangalia kwenye misahafu, kama vile uhai, afya, maarifa, ukweli, urazini, urafiki, utajiri, uhuru na ustawi.

Na kuhusu Imani juu ya maadili ya kiutu (normative beliefs): Imani ya kisiasa na imani ya kidini, kwa pamoja, zinatambua uwepo wa “maadili ya kiutu,” yanazoweza kugunduliwa bila kuangalia kwenye misahafu, kama vile haki za binadamu zilizomo kwenye Tangazo la Dunia Kuhusu Haki za Binadamu.

Majibu kwa Swali la (2): Katika maisha ya watu, ukuta wa kikatiba inaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo za kisiasa unaweza kutenganisha mambo gani?

Jibu: Ukuta wa kikatiba inaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo za kisiasa unaweza kutenganisha mambo kadhaa katika maeneo yafuatayo: imani kuhusu vitu vinayoonekana na visivyoonekana (existential beliefs), imani kuhusu tunu za kiutu (evaluative values), na imani kuhusu maadili ya kiutu (normative beliefs). Ufafanuzi unafuata.

Kuhusu Imani juu ya vitu vinayoonekana na visivyoonekana (existential beliefs): Wakati imani ya kisiasa na imani ya kidini, kwa pamoja, zinatambua uwepo wa vitu vinayoonekana na kugusika; ni imani ya kidini pekee inayotambua uwepo wa vitu visivyoonekana na visivyogusika kama vile mizimu, majini, malaika, mbingu, ahera, kuzimu, miungu na Mungu.

Kuhusu Imani juu ya tunu za kiutu (evaluative values): Wakati imani ya kisiasa na imani ya kidini, kwa pamoja, zinatambua uwepo wa “tunu za kiutu,” zinazoweza kugunduliwa bila kuangalia kwenye misahafu, kama vile uhai, afya, maarifa, ukweli, urazini, urafiki, utajiri, uhuru na ustawi; imani ya kidini, kwa sehemu kubwa, zinatambua uwepo wa “tunu za kidini,” zinazotamkwa na misahafu, mfano wokovu, uzima wa milele, ibada, sala, na upendo.

Na kuhusu Imani juu ya maadili ya kiutu (Normative beliefs): Wakati imani ya kisiasa na imani ya kidini, kwa pamoja, zinatambua uwepo wa “maadili ya kiutu,” yanazoweza kugunduliwa bila kuangalia kwenye misahafu, kama vile haki za binadamu zilizomo kwenye Tangazo la Dunia Kuhusu Haki za Binadamu; imani ya kidini inatambua “maadili ya kiutu,” yanazoweza kugunduliwa bila kuangalia kwenye misahafu na mapokeo husika, kama vile maadili ya ibada, maadili ya mavazi, na maadili ya vyakula.

Majibu kwa Swali la (3): Matamko manane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia ni yapi na yalibeba maudhui gani?

Jibu: Matamko manane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia yalibeba maudhui yanayotokana na mfumo wa amri kumi za Mungu kama ukitumika pamoja na mfumo wa maadili asilia kama ifuatavyo:

Wakristo wapatao bilioni 2.5 duniani kote, sawa na 37% ya watu wote duniani, wanaunganishwa na mafundisho ya kidini ("religious doctrine") yanayoweza kufupishwa katika matamko matatu bila kubaki, kama ifuatavyo:

Mosi, maarifa kuhusu ukweli juu ya Mungu, Mazingira na Watu na uhusiano kati ya pande hizi tatu, kama yalivyofupishwa kwenye Kanuni za Imani kama vile Kanuni ya Imani ya Mitume, Kanuni ya Imani ya Athanazi, Kanuni ya Imani ya Nikea, na kadhalika (Credenda).

Pili, malengo yanayopaswa kuombewa kwa Mungu, katika matumaini, ili mahusiano kati ya Mungu, Mazingira na Watu yaimarike, kama yalivyofupishwa kwenye Sala ya Baba Yetu (Speranda).

Na tatu, majukumu yanayopaswa kutekelezwa ili kuonyesha upendo kwa vitendo, kwa ajili ya kudumisha mahusiano mema kati ya Mungu, Mazingira na Watu, kama yalivyofupishwa kwenye Amri Kumi za Mungu (Agenda).

Hivyo, Katekisimu zote za Ukristo zinaongelea na kufafanua mambo haya matatu, kwa kutumia lugha tofauti na mpangilio tofauti.

Uandishi wake unafuata mwongozo wa Mtume Paulo, asemaye: “Basi, sasa inadumu imani, tumaini, upendo, haya matatu; na katika hayo lililo kuu ni upendo.” (1 wakorintho 13:13).

Ajenda ya Taasisi za dini ya Ukristo, likiwemo Kanisa Katoliki, yaani Amri Kumi za Mungu wa Biblia, inavyo vipengele vifuatavyo:

• Moja, Mwabudu Mungu mmoja aliyeumba Ulimwengu na anayepigania heshima ya utu wa kila binadamu (Kutoka 20:2-8)
• Mbili, Fanya kazi kwa siku sita za wiki kwa kutumia mbinu za sayansi na tekinolojia mamboleo (Kutoka 20:9)
• Tatu, Pumzika kazi zote siku ya saba (Kutoka 20:10-11)
• Nne, Waheshimu wazazi wako walioasisi familia yako (Kutoka 20:12)
• Tano, Usiue mtu yeyote asiye na hatia wala kuua jina lake zuri kwa kumpaka matope (Kutoka 20:13)
• Sita, Usizini mke wa jirani yako yeyote, mahali popote na wakati wowote (Kutoka 20:14)
• Saba, Usiibe mali wala kuiba mtu kwa kumteka na kumpoteza (Kutoka 20:15)
• Nane, Usimdanganye mtu yeyote, mahali popote, wakati wowote, na kwa njia yoyote (Kutoka 20:16)
• Tisa, Usitamani mke wala kitu chochore cha jirani yako yeyote, mahali popote na wakati wowote (Kutoka 20:17)
• Na kumi, Usitende uovu kama mbinu ya kufanikisha lengo jema (Kutoka 20:2-18)

Kiteolojia, hizi amri kumi zinataja majukumu ya Mkristo ambayo yanaweza kufupishwa katika majukumu makuu matatu.

Yaani: Jukumu la Kumpenda Mungu; Jukumu la Kumpenda jirani; na Jukumu la kuyapenda mazingira yaliyo rafiki kwa ustawi wa wote. (Mathayo 22:36-40)

Kumpenda mtu ni kufanya kitendo chochote kinachomsogeza karibu na mema ya kiutu au kumsogeza mbali na mabaya dhidi ya utu, na hivyo, kukuza na kuhami tunu za kiutu.

Hivyo, amri kumi za Mungu zinachora mstitari kati ya tunu hasi na tunu chanya kama ifuatavyo:

Umungu dhidi ya ushetani; Utu dhidi ya unyani; Uchapa kazi dhidi ya Uzembe; Ajira dhidi ya ukosefu wa ajira; Kuheshimu familia dhidi ya kuidharau familia; Ukweli dhidi ya uwongo na fitina; Uhai dhidi ya mauaji; Uzinzi dhidi ya uaminifu katika ndoa; Rushwa dhidhi ya nidhamu ya kimamlaka; Kuridhika dhidi ya kutamani mali ya wengine; a Utulivu wa nafsi dhidi ya wasiwasi wa nafsi.

Na kwa pamoja, hizi tunu, haki na majukumu vinaunda mfumo kamili wa maadili uliowekwa na Mungu wa Biblia kwa ajili kuratibu mahusiano kati ya Mtu-na-Mungu, mtu-na-mtu, na mtu-na-mazingira yake asilia.

Majibu kwa Swali la (4): Matamko manne ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kweli yanavuka mipaka ya kikatiba inayotenganisha mambo ya kidini kidini na mambo ya kiserikali, kama Rais Samia alivyodokeza?

Jibu: Mfumo wa maadili ya kimisahafu, kwa sehemu kubwa, unakubaliana na mfumo wa maadili asilia, wenye kuongozwa na msukumo wa tamaa asilia ya kufukuzia mema na kukwela maovu.

Yaani, kuna “mlaliano,” yaani “intersection,” kati ya mfumo wa maadili asilia yanayotambuliwa na katiba ya nchi na mfumo wa maadili ya kimisahafu.

Katika urefu na upana wake, “mlaliano” huo ndio unaunda maudhui ya matamko yote ya TEC. Hivyo, matamko haya yako ndani ya uzio wa mamlaka ya TEC na hayaruki ukuta wa kikatiba unaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa.

Hivyo malalamiko ya Rais Samia, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga, Elia Phaustine Kabote, na Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura ni malalamiko hewa.

Majibu kwa Swali la (5): Matamko manne ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kweli yanavuka mipaka ya kikatiba inayotenganisha mambo ya kidini yanayowahusu TEC na mambo ya kidini yanayozihusu taasisi baki za kidini, kama Rais Samia alivyodokeza?

Jibu: Kuna “mlaliano,” yaani “intersection,” kati ya mfumo wa maadili asilia yanayotambuliwa na katiba ya nchi na mifumo ya maadili ya kimisahafu inayotumiwa na dini mbalimbali.

Yaani, mfumo wa maadili asilia ni kigawe kidogo cha shirika kati ya dini na dini, madhehebu na madhehebu.

Ndio kusema kuwa, mfumo wa maadili asilia ni kama uzi unaounganisha shanga za tasbihi, ambapo kila punje inawakilisha madhehebu fulani ya kidini.

Kwa kuwa mfumo wa maadili asilia ndio unaunda kiini cha maudhui ya matamko yote ya TEC, matamko hayo hayapokonyi haki za kidini za dini baki. Badala yake yanaziimarisha na kuziunganisha.

Kwa ujumla, matamko ya TEC yako ndani ya uzio wa mamlaka ya TEC na hayaruki ukuta unaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa.

Hii maana yake ni kwamba, malalamiko ya Rais Samia, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga, Elia Phaustine Kabote, na Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura ni malalamiko hewa.

Majibu kwa Swali la (6): Je, kuna muumini yeyote wa Kanisa Katoliki ambaye anapaswa kukerwa na Matamko manane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kiasi kwamba anastahili kuwasilisha malalamiko rasmi dhidi ya TEC mbele ya Balozi wa Papa, kama wanavyodai kina Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura?

Jibu: Kwa kuwa, matamko ya TEC yako ndani ya uzio wa mamlaka ya TEC na hayaruki ukuta unaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, hakuna muumini yeyote wa Kanisa Katoliki ambaye anapaswa kukerwa na Matamko manane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia.

Majibu kwa Swali la (7): Vijana waliodai kuandika barua ya malalamiko dhidi ya Padre Kitima kwenda kwa Papa ni “malofa” kweli?

Jibu: Ndio, ni malofa kwa kuwa, matamko ya TEC yako ndani ya uzio wa mamlaka ya TEC na hayaruki ukuta unaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, kiasi kwamba, hakuna muumini yeyote wa Kanisa Katoliki ambaye anapaswa kukerwa na Matamko manane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia.

Majibu kwa Swali la (8): Na, Je, ni tuzo gani ambayo kila pande katika mzozo huu unastahili?

Jibu: Kuna mawili. Mosi, Rais Samia, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga, Elia Phaustine Kabote, na Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura wanastahili kuliomba msamaha Kanisa Katoliki.

Na pili, Kanisa katoliki linawajibika kuwasamehe Rais Samia, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga, Elia Phaustine Kabote, na Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura, kwa kuwa hawajui walitendalo.

V. HITIMISHO

Napenda kuhitimisha dokezo hili kwa kunukuu Enjili ya Yohane isemayo, "Ukweli utatuweka huru" (Yohana 8:32)
View attachment 3523157

That quartet (Samia The Butcher, Nyakunga, Kabote and Lwezaura) is a bunch of idiots par excellence!

 

[kinondoniilala]

A

View attachment 3523155

SWALI KWA RAIS SAMIA: MATAMKO GANI YA TEC YALIVUKA UKUTA WA KIKATIBA UNAOPASWA KUTENGANISHA MAMBO YA KIDINI NA MAMBO YA KISIASA?​

I. UTANGULIZI

Tarehe 30 Aprili 30 2025, saa 4 usiku, Padre Kitima alijeruhiwa na watu wasiojulikana akiwa ndani ya eneo la Makao Makuu ya TEC, Kurasini, Dar es Salaam, ambako pia ndipo yalipo makazi yake rasmi.

Tarehe 02 Desemba 2025, Rais Samia akiwa anaongea na wazee wa Dar es Salaam, alidai kwamba, kupitia matamko nane yaliyotolewa na TEC tangu 2021, Kanisa Katoliki linavuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa nchini Tanzania.

Tarehe 22 Disemba 2025 watu wawili, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga na Elia Phaustine Kabote, waliojitambulisha kuwa ni waumini wa Kanisa Katoliki nchini Tanzania walidai kuwasilisha barua ya malalamiko dhidi ya Padri Charles Kitima kwa Balozi wa Vatican nchini Tanzania.

Wanadai kwamba Padri Kitima, ambaye pia ni Katibu Mkuu wa TEC, anavuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, kwa sababu anafanya kazi kama mshauri wa kisiasa wa CHADEMA kuhusu umuhimu na ulazima wa kufanua siasa zinazozingatia tunu na maadili ya kiutu.

Tarehe 25 Desemba 2025, akitoa homilia wakati wa Adhimisho la Misa Takatifu Parokiani Goba, Askofu Mkuu wa Jimbo Kuu Katoliki la Dar es Salaam, Jude Thaddeus Ruwaichi, aliongelea jambo hili.

Alisema kwamba kundi la vijana waliodai kuwa Wakatoliki na kuandika barua ya malalamiko dhidi ya Padri Charles Kitima kwenda kwa Balozi wa Vatican nchini Tanzania, sio Wakristo wa kweli bali ni malofa, wapumbavu, waganga njaa, wanafiki na wasaliti wa imani.

Tarehe 27 Desemba 2025, barua ya wazi kwa Balozi wa Papa juu ya kauli ya Askofu Ruwa’ichi, isiyoonyesha jina la mwandishi, ilisambzwa kwenye mitandao ya kijamii. Barua hiyo ilibeba kichwa cha maneno, “malalamiko rasmi dhidi ya kauli na utaratibu wa Askofu Mkuu Yuda Thaddeus Ruwaichi wa Jimbo Kuu la Dar Es Salaam kwenda kwa Balozi wa Papa.”

Mwandishi alimwomba Papa kuchunguza mwenendo wa Askofu Ruwaichi ambao alidai unaenda kinyume na misingi ya Kikanuni, Kiliturujia, na kimaadili kwa kuingilia Mamlaka ya Vatican (Canon 1417), kudharauliwa kwa Alama ya Imani (Rozari Takatifu), kupotosha mafundisho ya Amani na Haki, na kutumia lugha ya dharau dhidi ya Waumini walioitwa "Malofa" (Canon 220).

Na tarehe 30 Desemba 2025, Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura, ambaye ni mseminari wa zamani aliyefukuzwa na Kanisa katoliki kwa sababu ya utovu wa nidhamu, alikutana na waandishi wa habari na kumlaumu Askofu Ruwaichi kwa kukiuka kifungu namba 212(3) cha sheria za Kanisa katoliki, kinachowapa waumini haki ya kuhoji utendaji kazi wa wakuu wa kanisa, pale wanapokosa haki zao za kidini kama waumini.

Baada ya kutafakari kwa makini matamshi ya umma yanayoendelea, ambayo yamechochewa na uhusiano tata kati ya TEC na Serikali nchini Tanzania, nimeamua kutoa maoni binafsi, katika mfumo wa dokezo la “amicus curiae.”

Jukumu la dokezo hili ni kuwasaidia wadau katika kufanya maamuzi sahihi kwa kuhakikisha kwamba ushahidi na hoja zote muhimu zinawasilishwa kwao ipasavyo katika mfumo unaoweza kupokelewa na akili za watu wote.

II. VIINI VYA MVUTANO

Hivyo basi, dokezo hili linatoa mtazamo wa kiufundi kuhusu maswali yafuatayo yanayobishaniwa, yaani:

(1) Katika maisha ya watu, ukuta wa kikatiba inaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo za kisiasa hauwezi kutenganisha mambo yapi?

(2) Katika maisha ya watu, ukuta wa kikatiba inaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo za kisiasa unaweza kutenganisha mambo gani?

(3) Matamko manane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia ni yapi na yalibeba maudhui gani?

(4) Matamko manne ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kweli yanavuka mipaka ya kikatiba inayotenganisha mambo ya kidini kidini na mambo ya kiserikali, kama Rais Samia alivyodokeza?

(5) Matamko manne ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kweli yanavuka mipaka ya kikatiba inayotenganisha mambo ya kidini yanayowahusu TEC na mambo ya kidini yanayozihusu taasisi baki za kidini, kama Rais Samia alivyodokeza?

(6) Je, kuna muumini yeyote wa Kanisa Katoliki ambaye anapaswa kukerwa na Matamko manane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kiasi kwamba anastahili kuwasilisha malalamiko rasmi dhidi ya TEC mbele ya Balozi wa Papa, kama wanavyodai kina Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura?

(7) Vijana waliodai kuandika barua ya malalamiko dhidi ya Padre Kitima kwenda kwa Papa ni “malofa” kweli?

(8) Na, Je, ni tuzo gani ambayo kila pande katika mzozo huu unastahili?

III. MSINGI WA KIKATIBA NA KISHERIA

Nchini Tanzania, mahusiano kati ya taasisi za dini na serikali yanaratibiwa kwa kuzingatia mwongozo wa kikatiba unaopatikana katika ibara ya 9(g), 13(5), 19(1), 19(2) na 19(3). Ibara hizi zinasomeka kama ifuatavyo:

"9(g) Kwa hiyo, Mamlaka yaNchi na vyombo vyake vyote vinawajibika kuelekeza sera nashughuli zake zote katika lengo la kuhakikisha... kwamba Serikali na vyombo vyake vyote vya ummavinatoa nafasi zilizo sawa kwa raia wote, wake kwawaume, bila ya kujali rangi, kabila, dini au hali yamtu"

"13(5) Kwa madhumuni ya ufafanuzi wa masharti ya ibara hiineno "kubagua" maana yake ni kutimiza haja, haki au mahitajimengineyo kwa watu mbalimbali kwa kuzingatia utaifa wao,kabila, pahala walipotokea, maoni yao ya kisiasa, rangi, dini, jinsia au hali yao ya maisha kwa namna ambayo watu wa ainafulani wanafanywa au kuhesabiwa kuwa dhaifu au duni nakuwekewa vikwazo au masharti ya vipingamizi ambapo watu waaina nyingine wanatendewa tofauti au wanapewa fursa au faidailiyoko nje ya masharti au sifa za lazima, isipokuwa kwamba neno"kubagua" halitafafanuliwa kwa namna ambayo itaizuia Serikalikuchukua hatua za makusudi zenye lengo la kurekebishamatatizo katika jamii."

"19(1) Kila mtu anastahili kuwa na uhuru wa mawazo, imanina uchaguzi katika mambo ya dini, pamoja na uhuru wa mtukubadilisha dini au imani yake."

"19(2) Bila ya kuathiri sheria zinazohusika za Jamhuri yaMuungano, kazi ya kutangaza dini, kufanya ibada na kuenezadini itakuwa ni huru na jambo la hiari ya mtu ya binafsi, nashughuli na uendeshaji wa jumuiya za dini zitakuwa nje yashughuli za mamlaka ya nchi."

"19(3) Kila palipotajwa neno 'dini' katika ibara hii ifahamikekwamba maana yake ni pamoja na madhehebu ya dini, namaneno mengineyo yanayofanana au kuambatana na neno hilonayo yatatafsiriwa kwa maana hiyo."

Lakini, hakuna sheria maalum iliyotungwa na Bunge kwa ajili ya kufafanua vifungu hivi vya kikatiba.

IV. MAJIBU YA KITAFITI

Majibu kwa Swali la (1): Katika maisha ya watu, ukuta wa kikatiba inaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo za kisiasa hauwezi kutenganisha mambo yapi?

Jibu: Ukuta wa kikatiba inaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo za kisiasa hauwezi kutenganisha mambo kadhaa katika maeneo yafuatayo: imani kuhusu vitu vinayoonekana na visivyoonekana (existential beliefs), imani kuhusu tunu za kiutu (evaluative values), na imani kuhusu maadili ya kiutu (normative beliefs). Ufafanuzi unafuata.

Kuhusu Imani juu ya vitu vinayoonekana na visivyoonekana (existential beliefs): Imani ya kisiasa na imani ya kidini, kwa pamoja, zinatambua uwepo wa vitu vinayoonekana na kugusika.

Kuhusu Imani juu ya tunu za kiutu (evaluative values): Imani ya kisiasa na imani ya kidini, kwa pamoja, zinatambua uwepo wa “tunu za kiutu,” zinazoweza kugunduliwa bila kuangalia kwenye misahafu, kama vile uhai, afya, maarifa, ukweli, urazini, urafiki, utajiri, uhuru na ustawi.

Na kuhusu Imani juu ya maadili ya kiutu (normative beliefs): Imani ya kisiasa na imani ya kidini, kwa pamoja, zinatambua uwepo wa “maadili ya kiutu,” yanazoweza kugunduliwa bila kuangalia kwenye misahafu, kama vile haki za binadamu zilizomo kwenye Tangazo la Dunia Kuhusu Haki za Binadamu.

Majibu kwa Swali la (2): Katika maisha ya watu, ukuta wa kikatiba inaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo za kisiasa unaweza kutenganisha mambo gani?

Jibu: Ukuta wa kikatiba inaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo za kisiasa unaweza kutenganisha mambo kadhaa katika maeneo yafuatayo: imani kuhusu vitu vinayoonekana na visivyoonekana (existential beliefs), imani kuhusu tunu za kiutu (evaluative values), na imani kuhusu maadili ya kiutu (normative beliefs). Ufafanuzi unafuata.

Kuhusu Imani juu ya vitu vinayoonekana na visivyoonekana (existential beliefs): Wakati imani ya kisiasa na imani ya kidini, kwa pamoja, zinatambua uwepo wa vitu vinayoonekana na kugusika; ni imani ya kidini pekee inayotambua uwepo wa vitu visivyoonekana na visivyogusika kama vile mizimu, majini, malaika, mbingu, ahera, kuzimu, miungu na Mungu.

Kuhusu Imani juu ya tunu za kiutu (evaluative values): Wakati imani ya kisiasa na imani ya kidini, kwa pamoja, zinatambua uwepo wa “tunu za kiutu,” zinazoweza kugunduliwa bila kuangalia kwenye misahafu, kama vile uhai, afya, maarifa, ukweli, urazini, urafiki, utajiri, uhuru na ustawi; imani ya kidini, kwa sehemu kubwa, zinatambua uwepo wa “tunu za kidini,” zinazotamkwa na misahafu, mfano wokovu, uzima wa milele, ibada, sala, na upendo.

Na kuhusu Imani juu ya maadili ya kiutu (Normative beliefs): Wakati imani ya kisiasa na imani ya kidini, kwa pamoja, zinatambua uwepo wa “maadili ya kiutu,” yanazoweza kugunduliwa bila kuangalia kwenye misahafu, kama vile haki za binadamu zilizomo kwenye Tangazo la Dunia Kuhusu Haki za Binadamu; imani ya kidini inatambua “maadili ya kiutu,” yanazoweza kugunduliwa bila kuangalia kwenye misahafu na mapokeo husika, kama vile maadili ya ibada, maadili ya mavazi, na maadili ya vyakula.

Majibu kwa Swali la (3): Matamko manane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia ni yapi na yalibeba maudhui gani?

Jibu: Matamko manane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia yalibeba maudhui yanayotokana na mfumo wa amri kumi za Mungu kama ukitumika pamoja na mfumo wa maadili asilia kama ifuatavyo:

Wakristo wapatao bilioni 2.5 duniani kote, sawa na 37% ya watu wote duniani, wanaunganishwa na mafundisho ya kidini ("religious doctrine") yanayoweza kufupishwa katika matamko matatu bila kubaki, kama ifuatavyo:

Mosi, maarifa kuhusu ukweli juu ya Mungu, Mazingira na Watu na uhusiano kati ya pande hizi tatu, kama yalivyofupishwa kwenye Kanuni za Imani kama vile Kanuni ya Imani ya Mitume, Kanuni ya Imani ya Athanazi, Kanuni ya Imani ya Nikea, na kadhalika (Credenda).

Pili, malengo yanayopaswa kuombewa kwa Mungu, katika matumaini, ili mahusiano kati ya Mungu, Mazingira na Watu yaimarike, kama yalivyofupishwa kwenye Sala ya Baba Yetu (Speranda).

Na tatu, majukumu yanayopaswa kutekelezwa ili kuonyesha upendo kwa vitendo, kwa ajili ya kudumisha mahusiano mema kati ya Mungu, Mazingira na Watu, kama yalivyofupishwa kwenye Amri Kumi za Mungu (Agenda).

Hivyo, Katekisimu zote za Ukristo zinaongelea na kufafanua mambo haya matatu, kwa kutumia lugha tofauti na mpangilio tofauti.

Uandishi wake unafuata mwongozo wa Mtume Paulo, asemaye: “Basi, sasa inadumu imani, tumaini, upendo, haya matatu; na katika hayo lililo kuu ni upendo.” (1 wakorintho 13:13).

Ajenda ya Taasisi za dini ya Ukristo, likiwemo Kanisa Katoliki, yaani Amri Kumi za Mungu wa Biblia, inavyo vipengele vifuatavyo:

• Moja, Mwabudu Mungu mmoja aliyeumba Ulimwengu na anayepigania heshima ya utu wa kila binadamu (Kutoka 20:2-8)
• Mbili, Fanya kazi kwa siku sita za wiki kwa kutumia mbinu za sayansi na tekinolojia mamboleo (Kutoka 20:9)
• Tatu, Pumzika kazi zote siku ya saba (Kutoka 20:10-11)
• Nne, Waheshimu wazazi wako walioasisi familia yako (Kutoka 20:12)
• Tano, Usiue mtu yeyote asiye na hatia wala kuua jina lake zuri kwa kumpaka matope (Kutoka 20:13)
• Sita, Usizini mke wa jirani yako yeyote, mahali popote na wakati wowote (Kutoka 20:14)
• Saba, Usiibe mali wala kuiba mtu kwa kumteka na kumpoteza (Kutoka 20:15)
• Nane, Usimdanganye mtu yeyote, mahali popote, wakati wowote, na kwa njia yoyote (Kutoka 20:16)
• Tisa, Usitamani mke wala kitu chochore cha jirani yako yeyote, mahali popote na wakati wowote (Kutoka 20:17)
• Na kumi, Usitende uovu kama mbinu ya kufanikisha lengo jema (Kutoka 20:2-18)

Kiteolojia, hizi amri kumi zinataja majukumu ya Mkristo ambayo yanaweza kufupishwa katika majukumu makuu matatu.

Yaani: Jukumu la Kumpenda Mungu; Jukumu la Kumpenda jirani; na Jukumu la kuyapenda mazingira yaliyo rafiki kwa ustawi wa wote. (Mathayo 22:36-40)

Kumpenda mtu ni kufanya kitendo chochote kinachomsogeza karibu na mema ya kiutu au kumsogeza mbali na mabaya dhidi ya utu, na hivyo, kukuza na kuhami tunu za kiutu.

Hivyo, amri kumi za Mungu zinachora mstitari kati ya tunu hasi na tunu chanya kama ifuatavyo:

Umungu dhidi ya ushetani; Utu dhidi ya unyani; Uchapa kazi dhidi ya Uzembe; Ajira dhidi ya ukosefu wa ajira; Kuheshimu familia dhidi ya kuidharau familia; Ukweli dhidi ya uwongo na fitina; Uhai dhidi ya mauaji; Uzinzi dhidi ya uaminifu katika ndoa; Rushwa dhidhi ya nidhamu ya kimamlaka; Kuridhika dhidi ya kutamani mali ya wengine; a Utulivu wa nafsi dhidi ya wasiwasi wa nafsi.

Na kwa pamoja, hizi tunu, haki na majukumu vinaunda mfumo kamili wa maadili uliowekwa na Mungu wa Biblia kwa ajili kuratibu mahusiano kati ya Mtu-na-Mungu, mtu-na-mtu, na mtu-na-mazingira yake asilia.

Majibu kwa Swali la (4): Matamko manne ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kweli yanavuka mipaka ya kikatiba inayotenganisha mambo ya kidini kidini na mambo ya kiserikali, kama Rais Samia alivyodokeza?

Jibu: Mfumo wa maadili ya kimisahafu, kwa sehemu kubwa, unakubaliana na mfumo wa maadili asilia, wenye kuongozwa na msukumo wa tamaa asilia ya kufukuzia mema na kukwela maovu.

Yaani, kuna “mlaliano,” yaani “intersection,” kati ya mfumo wa maadili asilia yanayotambuliwa na katiba ya nchi na mfumo wa maadili ya kimisahafu.

Katika urefu na upana wake, “mlaliano” huo ndio unaunda maudhui ya matamko yote ya TEC. Hivyo, matamko haya yako ndani ya uzio wa mamlaka ya TEC na hayaruki ukuta wa kikatiba unaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa.

Hivyo malalamiko ya Rais Samia, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga, Elia Phaustine Kabote, na Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura ni malalamiko hewa.

Majibu kwa Swali la (5): Matamko manne ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kweli yanavuka mipaka ya kikatiba inayotenganisha mambo ya kidini yanayowahusu TEC na mambo ya kidini yanayozihusu taasisi baki za kidini, kama Rais Samia alivyodokeza?

Jibu: Kuna “mlaliano,” yaani “intersection,” kati ya mfumo wa maadili asilia yanayotambuliwa na katiba ya nchi na mifumo ya maadili ya kimisahafu inayotumiwa na dini mbalimbali.

Yaani, mfumo wa maadili asilia ni kigawe kidogo cha shirika kati ya dini na dini, madhehebu na madhehebu.

Ndio kusema kuwa, mfumo wa maadili asilia ni kama uzi unaounganisha shanga za tasbihi, ambapo kila punje inawakilisha madhehebu fulani ya kidini.

Kwa kuwa mfumo wa maadili asilia ndio unaunda kiini cha maudhui ya matamko yote ya TEC, matamko hayo hayapokonyi haki za kidini za dini baki. Badala yake yanaziimarisha na kuziunganisha.

Kwa ujumla, matamko ya TEC yako ndani ya uzio wa mamlaka ya TEC na hayaruki ukuta unaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa.

Hii maana yake ni kwamba, malalamiko ya Rais Samia, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga, Elia Phaustine Kabote, na Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura ni malalamiko hewa.

Majibu kwa Swali la (6): Je, kuna muumini yeyote wa Kanisa Katoliki ambaye anapaswa kukerwa na Matamko manane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kiasi kwamba anastahili kuwasilisha malalamiko rasmi dhidi ya TEC mbele ya Balozi wa Papa, kama wanavyodai kina Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura?

Jibu: Kwa kuwa, matamko ya TEC yako ndani ya uzio wa mamlaka ya TEC na hayaruki ukuta unaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, hakuna muumini yeyote wa Kanisa Katoliki ambaye anapaswa kukerwa na Matamko manane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia.

Majibu kwa Swali la (7): Vijana waliodai kuandika barua ya malalamiko dhidi ya Padre Kitima kwenda kwa Papa ni “malofa” kweli?

Jibu: Ndio, ni malofa kwa kuwa, matamko ya TEC yako ndani ya uzio wa mamlaka ya TEC na hayaruki ukuta unaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, kiasi kwamba, hakuna muumini yeyote wa Kanisa Katoliki ambaye anapaswa kukerwa na Matamko manane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia.

Majibu kwa Swali la (8): Na, Je, ni tuzo gani ambayo kila pande katika mzozo huu unastahili?

Jibu: Kuna mawili. Mosi, Rais Samia, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga, Elia Phaustine Kabote, na Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura wanastahili kuliomba msamaha Kanisa Katoliki.

Na pili, Kanisa katoliki linawajibika kuwasamehe Rais Samia, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga, Elia Phaustine Kabote, na Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura, kwa kuwa hawajui walitendalo.

V. HITIMISHO

Napenda kuhitimisha dokezo hili kwa kunukuu Enjili ya Yohane isemayo, "Ukweli utatuweka huru" (Yohana 8:32)
View attachment 3523157

Akikujibu niambie

 

[The Palm Beach]

Tabia ya Samia na aliowatuma kufanya vita na Kanisa Katoliki ni kiwakilishi cha tabia ya shetani ya kupinga uadilifu na kukumbatia utovu wa maadili...

Kwa lugha rahisi na ya kueleweka kirahisi ni kuwa, Samia Suluhu Hassani ni wakala shetani (The devil's Agent). Wakala ni yule afanyaye kazi fulani kwa niaba ya aliyepaswa kufanywa kazi yake...

Samia Suluhu Hassan ktk Scenario hii yeye ni "Super Agent" wa "roho ya uasi" a.k.a "Shetani" au "Ibilisi..."

Hawa wengine kina Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga, Elia Phaustine Kabote, na Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura ni viwakala vidogo (katika ulimwengu wa roho tunaita "roho chafu" au "mapepo" lakini wakifanya kazi ya shetani..

Ukiwauliza waeleze tatizo la TEC au Askofu Gwajima hata kujaribu kufuta usajili wa kanisa ni nini, kamwe hawawezi kusema zaidi ya kutoa general sweeping statements kama "wanachanganya dini na siasa..."

Hata ukiwauliza waeleze dhana ya kuchanganya dini na siasa na namna ilivyo kuwa applied na Wakatoliki au Askofu Josephat Gwajima wa makanisa ya GCTC - Ufufuo na Uzima, hawataweza kueleza zaidi ya kusema anaisema serikali na Rais Samia akiwa mimbarini (altareni)..!!

Hapa Doctor Mama Amon umeeleza na kufafanua vizuri sana. Let me hope kuwa wataliona andiko hili na kulisoma pengine likawasaidia kuondoa ujinga wao...

Sijui wanashindwa ni kuelewa logic rahisi tu kuwa, kuteka na kuua mtu ni kinyume cha sheria za nchi (serikali) na wakati huohuo ni kinyume cha maadili na sheria za Mungu...

Vivyo hivyo wizi wa aina yoyote iwe ni kitu au mali isiyo yako au kuiba uchaguzi (ku - manipulate taratibu za kiuchaguzi ili zikupendelee wewe na imnyime mwingne haki yake ya kuchagua au kuchaguliwa kuwa kiongozi) ni kinyume cha sheria za nchi na ni nje ya maadili ya kidini na Mungu mwenyewe...

Kuyasema haya ktk namna ya kukemea iwe ni ndani ya kanisa au msikitini, hakuwezi kutafsiriwa kuwa umeingiza siasa ktk dini au dini ktk kisiasa...

Kama ulivyoandika kusema dini na siasa (serikali) kiuhalisia zinapaswa kufanya kazi pamoja interchangeably kwa sababu zote hizi zinahudumia ustawi wa mwanadamu...

Asante Doctor Mama Amon kwa elimu nzuri ya kupanua ufahamu na uelewa wa mtu..🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

 

[lukesam]

Inasikitisha sana unapoandika kwa kutumia akili na umakini halafu uje kujibiwa na akina Lucas Mwashambwa

Binafsi huwa naona mtu aliyeshindwa na asiyetaka kutenda haki halafu anahaha kuhubiri amani ni kama amerukwa na akili. ​

 

[Ileje]

 

[Ileje]

 

[TigerHead]

View attachment 3523155

SWALI KWA RAIS SAMIA: MATAMKO GANI YA TEC YALIVUKA UKUTA WA KIKATIBA UNAOPASWA KUTENGANISHA MAMBO YA KIDINI NA MAMBO YA KISIASA?​

I. UTANGULIZI

Tarehe 30 Aprili 30 2025, saa 4 usiku, Padre Kitima alijeruhiwa na watu wasiojulikana akiwa ndani ya eneo la Makao Makuu ya TEC, Kurasini, Dar es Salaam, ambako pia ndipo yalipo makazi yake rasmi.

Tarehe 02 Desemba 2025, Rais Samia akiwa anaongea na wazee wa Dar es Salaam, alidai kwamba, kupitia matamko nane yaliyotolewa na TEC tangu 2021, Kanisa Katoliki linavuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa nchini Tanzania.

Tarehe 22 Disemba 2025 watu wawili, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga na Elia Phaustine Kabote, waliojitambulisha kuwa ni waumini wa Kanisa Katoliki nchini Tanzania walidai kuwasilisha barua ya malalamiko dhidi ya Padri Charles Kitima kwa Balozi wa Vatican nchini Tanzania.

Wanadai kwamba Padri Kitima, ambaye pia ni Katibu Mkuu wa TEC, anavuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, kwa sababu anafanya kazi kama mshauri wa kisiasa wa CHADEMA kuhusu umuhimu na ulazima wa kufanua siasa zinazozingatia tunu na maadili ya kiutu.

Tarehe 25 Desemba 2025, akitoa homilia wakati wa Adhimisho la Misa Takatifu Parokiani Goba, Askofu Mkuu wa Jimbo Kuu Katoliki la Dar es Salaam, Jude Thaddeus Ruwaichi, aliongelea jambo hili.

Alisema kwamba kundi la vijana waliodai kuwa Wakatoliki na kuandika barua ya malalamiko dhidi ya Padri Charles Kitima kwenda kwa Balozi wa Vatican nchini Tanzania, sio Wakristo wa kweli bali ni malofa, wapumbavu, waganga njaa, wanafiki na wasaliti wa imani.

Tarehe 27 Desemba 2025, barua ya wazi kwa Balozi wa Papa juu ya kauli ya Askofu Ruwa’ichi, isiyoonyesha jina la mwandishi, ilisambzwa kwenye mitandao ya kijamii. Barua hiyo ilibeba kichwa cha maneno, “malalamiko rasmi dhidi ya kauli na utaratibu wa Askofu Mkuu Yuda Thaddeus Ruwaichi wa Jimbo Kuu la Dar Es Salaam kwenda kwa Balozi wa Papa.”

Mwandishi alimwomba Papa kuchunguza mwenendo wa Askofu Ruwaichi ambao alidai unaenda kinyume na misingi ya Kikanuni, Kiliturujia, na kimaadili kwa kuingilia Mamlaka ya Vatican (Canon 1417), kudharauliwa kwa Alama ya Imani (Rozari Takatifu), kupotosha mafundisho ya Amani na Haki, na kutumia lugha ya dharau dhidi ya Waumini walioitwa "Malofa" (Canon 220).

Na tarehe 30 Desemba 2025, Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura, ambaye ni mseminari wa zamani aliyefukuzwa na Kanisa katoliki kwa sababu ya utovu wa nidhamu, alikutana na waandishi wa habari na kumlaumu Askofu Ruwaichi kwa kukiuka kifungu namba 212(3) cha sheria za Kanisa katoliki, kinachowapa waumini haki ya kuhoji utendaji kazi wa wakuu wa kanisa, pale wanapokosa haki zao za kidini kama waumini.

Baada ya kutafakari kwa makini matamshi ya umma yanayoendelea, ambayo yamechochewa na uhusiano tata kati ya TEC na Serikali nchini Tanzania, nimeamua kutoa maoni binafsi, katika mfumo wa dokezo la “amicus curiae.”

Jukumu la dokezo hili ni kuwasaidia wadau katika kufanya maamuzi sahihi kwa kuhakikisha kwamba ushahidi na hoja zote muhimu zinawasilishwa kwao ipasavyo katika mfumo unaoweza kupokelewa na akili za watu wote.

II. VIINI VYA MVUTANO

Hivyo basi, dokezo hili linatoa mtazamo wa kiufundi kuhusu maswali yafuatayo yanayobishaniwa, yaani:

(1) Katika maisha ya watu, ukuta wa kikatiba inaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo za kisiasa hauwezi kutenganisha mambo yapi?

(2) Katika maisha ya watu, ukuta wa kikatiba inaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo za kisiasa unaweza kutenganisha mambo gani?

(3) Matamko manane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia ni yapi na yalibeba maudhui gani?

(4) Matamko manne ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kweli yanavuka mipaka ya kikatiba inayotenganisha mambo ya kidini kidini na mambo ya kiserikali, kama Rais Samia alivyodokeza?

(5) Matamko manne ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kweli yanavuka mipaka ya kikatiba inayotenganisha mambo ya kidini yanayowahusu TEC na mambo ya kidini yanayozihusu taasisi baki za kidini, kama Rais Samia alivyodokeza?

(6) Je, kuna muumini yeyote wa Kanisa Katoliki ambaye anapaswa kukerwa na Matamko manane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kiasi kwamba anastahili kuwasilisha malalamiko rasmi dhidi ya TEC mbele ya Balozi wa Papa, kama wanavyodai kina Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura?

(7) Vijana waliodai kuandika barua ya malalamiko dhidi ya Padre Kitima kwenda kwa Papa ni “malofa” kweli?

(8) Na, Je, ni tuzo gani ambayo kila pande katika mzozo huu unastahili?

III. MSINGI WA KIKATIBA NA KISHERIA

Nchini Tanzania, mahusiano kati ya taasisi za dini na serikali yanaratibiwa kwa kuzingatia mwongozo wa kikatiba unaopatikana katika ibara ya 9(g), 13(5), 19(1), 19(2) na 19(3). Ibara hizi zinasomeka kama ifuatavyo:

"9(g) Kwa hiyo, Mamlaka yaNchi na vyombo vyake vyote vinawajibika kuelekeza sera nashughuli zake zote katika lengo la kuhakikisha... kwamba Serikali na vyombo vyake vyote vya ummavinatoa nafasi zilizo sawa kwa raia wote, wake kwawaume, bila ya kujali rangi, kabila, dini au hali yamtu"

"13(5) Kwa madhumuni ya ufafanuzi wa masharti ya ibara hiineno "kubagua" maana yake ni kutimiza haja, haki au mahitajimengineyo kwa watu mbalimbali kwa kuzingatia utaifa wao,kabila, pahala walipotokea, maoni yao ya kisiasa, rangi, dini, jinsia au hali yao ya maisha kwa namna ambayo watu wa ainafulani wanafanywa au kuhesabiwa kuwa dhaifu au duni nakuwekewa vikwazo au masharti ya vipingamizi ambapo watu waaina nyingine wanatendewa tofauti au wanapewa fursa au faidailiyoko nje ya masharti au sifa za lazima, isipokuwa kwamba neno"kubagua" halitafafanuliwa kwa namna ambayo itaizuia Serikalikuchukua hatua za makusudi zenye lengo la kurekebishamatatizo katika jamii."

"19(1) Kila mtu anastahili kuwa na uhuru wa mawazo, imanina uchaguzi katika mambo ya dini, pamoja na uhuru wa mtukubadilisha dini au imani yake."

"19(2) Bila ya kuathiri sheria zinazohusika za Jamhuri yaMuungano, kazi ya kutangaza dini, kufanya ibada na kuenezadini itakuwa ni huru na jambo la hiari ya mtu ya binafsi, nashughuli na uendeshaji wa jumuiya za dini zitakuwa nje yashughuli za mamlaka ya nchi."

"19(3) Kila palipotajwa neno 'dini' katika ibara hii ifahamikekwamba maana yake ni pamoja na madhehebu ya dini, namaneno mengineyo yanayofanana au kuambatana na neno hilonayo yatatafsiriwa kwa maana hiyo."

Lakini, hakuna sheria maalum iliyotungwa na Bunge kwa ajili ya kufafanua vifungu hivi vya kikatiba.

IV. MAJIBU YA KITAFITI

Majibu kwa Swali la (1): Katika maisha ya watu, ukuta wa kikatiba inaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo za kisiasa hauwezi kutenganisha mambo yapi?

Jibu: Ukuta wa kikatiba inaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo za kisiasa hauwezi kutenganisha mambo kadhaa katika maeneo yafuatayo: imani kuhusu vitu vinayoonekana na visivyoonekana (existential beliefs), imani kuhusu tunu za kiutu (evaluative values), na imani kuhusu maadili ya kiutu (normative beliefs). Ufafanuzi unafuata.

Kuhusu Imani juu ya vitu vinayoonekana na visivyoonekana (existential beliefs): Imani ya kisiasa na imani ya kidini, kwa pamoja, zinatambua uwepo wa vitu vinayoonekana na kugusika.

Kuhusu Imani juu ya tunu za kiutu (evaluative values): Imani ya kisiasa na imani ya kidini, kwa pamoja, zinatambua uwepo wa “tunu za kiutu,” zinazoweza kugunduliwa bila kuangalia kwenye misahafu, kama vile uhai, afya, maarifa, ukweli, urazini, urafiki, utajiri, uhuru na ustawi.

Na kuhusu Imani juu ya maadili ya kiutu (normative beliefs): Imani ya kisiasa na imani ya kidini, kwa pamoja, zinatambua uwepo wa “maadili ya kiutu,” yanazoweza kugunduliwa bila kuangalia kwenye misahafu, kama vile haki za binadamu zilizomo kwenye Tangazo la Dunia Kuhusu Haki za Binadamu.

Majibu kwa Swali la (2): Katika maisha ya watu, ukuta wa kikatiba inaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo za kisiasa unaweza kutenganisha mambo gani?

Jibu: Ukuta wa kikatiba inaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo za kisiasa unaweza kutenganisha mambo kadhaa katika maeneo yafuatayo: imani kuhusu vitu vinayoonekana na visivyoonekana (existential beliefs), imani kuhusu tunu za kiutu (evaluative values), na imani kuhusu maadili ya kiutu (normative beliefs). Ufafanuzi unafuata.

Kuhusu Imani juu ya vitu vinayoonekana na visivyoonekana (existential beliefs): Wakati imani ya kisiasa na imani ya kidini, kwa pamoja, zinatambua uwepo wa vitu vinayoonekana na kugusika; ni imani ya kidini pekee inayotambua uwepo wa vitu visivyoonekana na visivyogusika kama vile mizimu, majini, malaika, mbingu, ahera, kuzimu, miungu na Mungu.

Kuhusu Imani juu ya tunu za kiutu (evaluative values): Wakati imani ya kisiasa na imani ya kidini, kwa pamoja, zinatambua uwepo wa “tunu za kiutu,” zinazoweza kugunduliwa bila kuangalia kwenye misahafu, kama vile uhai, afya, maarifa, ukweli, urazini, urafiki, utajiri, uhuru na ustawi; imani ya kidini, kwa sehemu kubwa, zinatambua uwepo wa “tunu za kidini,” zinazotamkwa na misahafu, mfano wokovu, uzima wa milele, ibada, sala, na upendo.

Na kuhusu Imani juu ya maadili ya kiutu (Normative beliefs): Wakati imani ya kisiasa na imani ya kidini, kwa pamoja, zinatambua uwepo wa “maadili ya kiutu,” yanazoweza kugunduliwa bila kuangalia kwenye misahafu, kama vile haki za binadamu zilizomo kwenye Tangazo la Dunia Kuhusu Haki za Binadamu; imani ya kidini inatambua “maadili ya kiutu,” yanazoweza kugunduliwa bila kuangalia kwenye misahafu na mapokeo husika, kama vile maadili ya ibada, maadili ya mavazi, na maadili ya vyakula.

Majibu kwa Swali la (3): Matamko manane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia ni yapi na yalibeba maudhui gani?

Jibu: Matamko manane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia yalibeba maudhui yanayotokana na mfumo wa amri kumi za Mungu kama ukitumika pamoja na mfumo wa maadili asilia kama ifuatavyo:

Wakristo wapatao bilioni 2.5 duniani kote, sawa na 37% ya watu wote duniani, wanaunganishwa na mafundisho ya kidini ("religious doctrine") yanayoweza kufupishwa katika matamko matatu bila kubaki, kama ifuatavyo:

Mosi, maarifa kuhusu ukweli juu ya Mungu, Mazingira na Watu na uhusiano kati ya pande hizi tatu, kama yalivyofupishwa kwenye Kanuni za Imani kama vile Kanuni ya Imani ya Mitume, Kanuni ya Imani ya Athanazi, Kanuni ya Imani ya Nikea, na kadhalika (Credenda).

Pili, malengo yanayopaswa kuombewa kwa Mungu, katika matumaini, ili mahusiano kati ya Mungu, Mazingira na Watu yaimarike, kama yalivyofupishwa kwenye Sala ya Baba Yetu (Speranda).

Na tatu, majukumu yanayopaswa kutekelezwa ili kuonyesha upendo kwa vitendo, kwa ajili ya kudumisha mahusiano mema kati ya Mungu, Mazingira na Watu, kama yalivyofupishwa kwenye Amri Kumi za Mungu (Agenda).

Hivyo, Katekisimu zote za Ukristo zinaongelea na kufafanua mambo haya matatu, kwa kutumia lugha tofauti na mpangilio tofauti.

Uandishi wake unafuata mwongozo wa Mtume Paulo, asemaye: “Basi, sasa inadumu imani, tumaini, upendo, haya matatu; na katika hayo lililo kuu ni upendo.” (1 wakorintho 13:13).

Ajenda ya Taasisi za dini ya Ukristo, likiwemo Kanisa Katoliki, yaani Amri Kumi za Mungu wa Biblia, inavyo vipengele vifuatavyo:

• Moja, Mwabudu Mungu mmoja aliyeumba Ulimwengu na anayepigania heshima ya utu wa kila binadamu (Kutoka 20:2-8)
• Mbili, Fanya kazi kwa siku sita za wiki kwa kutumia mbinu za sayansi na tekinolojia mamboleo (Kutoka 20:9)
• Tatu, Pumzika kazi zote siku ya saba (Kutoka 20:10-11)
• Nne, Waheshimu wazazi wako walioasisi familia yako (Kutoka 20:12)
• Tano, Usiue mtu yeyote asiye na hatia wala kuua jina lake zuri kwa kumpaka matope (Kutoka 20:13)
• Sita, Usizini mke wa jirani yako yeyote, mahali popote na wakati wowote (Kutoka 20:14)
• Saba, Usiibe mali wala kuiba mtu kwa kumteka na kumpoteza (Kutoka 20:15)
• Nane, Usimdanganye mtu yeyote, mahali popote, wakati wowote, na kwa njia yoyote (Kutoka 20:16)
• Tisa, Usitamani mke wala kitu chochore cha jirani yako yeyote, mahali popote na wakati wowote (Kutoka 20:17)
• Na kumi, Usitende uovu kama mbinu ya kufanikisha lengo jema (Kutoka 20:2-18)

Kiteolojia, hizi amri kumi zinataja majukumu ya Mkristo ambayo yanaweza kufupishwa katika majukumu makuu matatu.

Yaani: Jukumu la Kumpenda Mungu; Jukumu la Kumpenda jirani; na Jukumu la kuyapenda mazingira yaliyo rafiki kwa ustawi wa wote. (Mathayo 22:36-40)

Kumpenda mtu ni kufanya kitendo chochote kinachomsogeza karibu na mema ya kiutu au kumsogeza mbali na mabaya dhidi ya utu, na hivyo, kukuza na kuhami tunu za kiutu.

Hivyo, amri kumi za Mungu zinachora mstitari kati ya tunu hasi na tunu chanya kama ifuatavyo:

Umungu dhidi ya ushetani; Utu dhidi ya unyani; Uchapa kazi dhidi ya Uzembe; Ajira dhidi ya ukosefu wa ajira; Kuheshimu familia dhidi ya kuidharau familia; Ukweli dhidi ya uwongo na fitina; Uhai dhidi ya mauaji; Uzinzi dhidi ya uaminifu katika ndoa; Rushwa dhidhi ya nidhamu ya kimamlaka; Kuridhika dhidi ya kutamani mali ya wengine; a Utulivu wa nafsi dhidi ya wasiwasi wa nafsi.

Na kwa pamoja, hizi tunu, haki na majukumu vinaunda mfumo kamili wa maadili uliowekwa na Mungu wa Biblia kwa ajili kuratibu mahusiano kati ya Mtu-na-Mungu, mtu-na-mtu, na mtu-na-mazingira yake asilia.

Majibu kwa Swali la (4): Matamko manne ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kweli yanavuka mipaka ya kikatiba inayotenganisha mambo ya kidini kidini na mambo ya kiserikali, kama Rais Samia alivyodokeza?

Jibu: Mfumo wa maadili ya kimisahafu, kwa sehemu kubwa, unakubaliana na mfumo wa maadili asilia, wenye kuongozwa na msukumo wa tamaa asilia ya kufukuzia mema na kukwela maovu.

Yaani, kuna “mlaliano,” yaani “intersection,” kati ya mfumo wa maadili asilia yanayotambuliwa na katiba ya nchi na mfumo wa maadili ya kimisahafu.

Katika urefu na upana wake, “mlaliano” huo ndio unaunda maudhui ya matamko yote ya TEC. Hivyo, matamko haya yako ndani ya uzio wa mamlaka ya TEC na hayaruki ukuta wa kikatiba unaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa.

Hivyo malalamiko ya Rais Samia, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga, Elia Phaustine Kabote, na Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura ni malalamiko hewa.

Majibu kwa Swali la (5): Matamko manne ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kweli yanavuka mipaka ya kikatiba inayotenganisha mambo ya kidini yanayowahusu TEC na mambo ya kidini yanayozihusu taasisi baki za kidini, kama Rais Samia alivyodokeza?

Jibu: Kuna “mlaliano,” yaani “intersection,” kati ya mfumo wa maadili asilia yanayotambuliwa na katiba ya nchi na mifumo ya maadili ya kimisahafu inayotumiwa na dini mbalimbali.

Yaani, mfumo wa maadili asilia ni kigawe kidogo cha shirika kati ya dini na dini, madhehebu na madhehebu.

Ndio kusema kuwa, mfumo wa maadili asilia ni kama uzi unaounganisha shanga za tasbihi, ambapo kila punje inawakilisha madhehebu fulani ya kidini.

Kwa kuwa mfumo wa maadili asilia ndio unaunda kiini cha maudhui ya matamko yote ya TEC, matamko hayo hayapokonyi haki za kidini za dini baki. Badala yake yanaziimarisha na kuziunganisha.

Kwa ujumla, matamko ya TEC yako ndani ya uzio wa mamlaka ya TEC na hayaruki ukuta unaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa.

Hii maana yake ni kwamba, malalamiko ya Rais Samia, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga, Elia Phaustine Kabote, na Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura ni malalamiko hewa.

Majibu kwa Swali la (6): Je, kuna muumini yeyote wa Kanisa Katoliki ambaye anapaswa kukerwa na Matamko manane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kiasi kwamba anastahili kuwasilisha malalamiko rasmi dhidi ya TEC mbele ya Balozi wa Papa, kama wanavyodai kina Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura?

Jibu: Kwa kuwa, matamko ya TEC yako ndani ya uzio wa mamlaka ya TEC na hayaruki ukuta unaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, hakuna muumini yeyote wa Kanisa Katoliki ambaye anapaswa kukerwa na Matamko manane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia.

Majibu kwa Swali la (7): Vijana waliodai kuandika barua ya malalamiko dhidi ya Padre Kitima kwenda kwa Papa ni “malofa” kweli?

Jibu: Ndio, ni malofa kwa kuwa, matamko ya TEC yako ndani ya uzio wa mamlaka ya TEC na hayaruki ukuta unaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, kiasi kwamba, hakuna muumini yeyote wa Kanisa Katoliki ambaye anapaswa kukerwa na Matamko manane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia.

Majibu kwa Swali la (8): Na, Je, ni tuzo gani ambayo kila pande katika mzozo huu unastahili?

Jibu: Kuna mawili. Mosi, Rais Samia, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga, Elia Phaustine Kabote, na Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura wanastahili kuliomba msamaha Kanisa Katoliki.

Na pili, Kanisa katoliki linawajibika kuwasamehe Rais Samia, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga, Elia Phaustine Kabote, na Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura, kwa kuwa hawajui walitendalo.

V. HITIMISHO

Napenda kuhitimisha dokezo hili kwa kunukuu Enjili ya Yohane isemayo, "Ukweli utatuweka huru" (Yohana 8:32)
View attachment 3523157

Acha waendelee kujizima data kwa manufaa yao,watazinduka usingizini kwakuchelewa sana.

 

[Pascal Mayalla]

SWALI KWA RAIS SAMIA: MATAMKO GANI YA TEC YALIVUKA UKUTA WA KIKATIBA UNAOPASWA KUTENGANISHA MAMBO YA KIDINI NA MAMBO YA KISIASA​

Thanks for this Doctor Mama Amon
P

 

[akili mwili mzima]

Umeandika vitu vikubwa mnoo ambavyo viko juu ya uwezo wa uelewa wa huyo samuya so hatakuelewa hata kdg atatoka kapa!

 

[Smart911]

Ahsante kwa taarifa...


Cc: Mahondaw

 

[ThnkingAloud]

View attachment 3523155
Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura akitetea (1) kauli za Rais Samia dhidi ya matamko ya TEC, (2) barua ya mshtaka hewa dhidi ya Padre Kitima na (3) barua ya uzushi dhidi ya Askofu Riwaichi. Lwezaura amejitambulisha kwa waandishi wa habari kuwa ni mseminari aliyefika seminari kuu lakini akaukosa upadre siku chache kabla ya upadirisho. Hivyo, Lwezaura ni mtaalam wa falsafa, teolojia na masomo mengine ya elimu dunia kama vile homilia. Tamko lifuatalo limeandaliwa kwa kuzingatia mambo haya yote.

SAMIA NA UKUTA UNAOTENGANISHA MAMBO YA DINI NA MAMBO YA SIASA: MATAMKO GANI YA VIONGOZI WA TEC YALIVUNJA KATIBA NA SHERIA ZA TANZANIA?
​

I. USULI

Tamko hili limeandaliwa kwa ajili ya kujibu swali lifuatalo: Matamko Gani ya TEC yanayodaiwa kuvuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, na kama kweli yalivuka ukuta huo ni kwa kiasi gani yalivuka ukuta huo?

Baada ya utafiti wa kina, natoa jawabu kamilifu lenye kujibu swali hili kwa kuonyesha mambo matatu makuu.

Mosi, ingawa serikali ya jamhuri inayofuata mfumo wa haki na majukumu asilia inapaswa kufanya kazi bila kuegemea upande wowote wa kidini, na hivyo kuheshimu ukuta unaotenganisha dini na serikali, bado ukweli ufuatao unasimama:

1. Kwamba, waumini binafsi wakiongozwa na "Seti Kuu ya Sheria Zinazoratibu Malimwengu" au sheria ya maadili asilia inayotokana na sheria kuu tajwa, bado wako huru kuleta mafundishio ya imani zao kuhusu maasili asilia, kama yanavyofundishwa na viongozi wao wa kidini, kwenye uwanja wa siasa na kushawishi utungaji wa sera za serikali unaozingatia mafundisho haya;
2. Kwamba, viongozi wa kidini, huku wakiwa wanatekeleza wajibu wao wa kimaadili na kikatiba wa kutetea haki za asilia za wafuasi wao, kama wanavyozisoma kutoka kwenye "Seti Kuu ya Sheria Zinazoratibu Malimwengu" au sheria ya maadili asilia inayotokana na sheria kuu tajwa, wanalazimika kukosoa moja kwa moja sera za serikali zinazokiuka haki asilia za waumini wao na raia baki wanaoweza kuwa waumini wao katika siku za usoni;
3. Na kwamba, serikali, huku ikitekeleza wajibu wake wa kikatiba wa kutetea haki za asili za raia, huku ikiwa inazisoma kutoka kkwenye katiba ya nchi, inawajibika kukosoa moja kwa moja sera za kidini zinazokiuka haki hizo.

Pili, ni kweli kwamba, kupitia utekelezaji wa sera za utekaji, utesaji, mauaji ya raia, na uporaji wa rasilimali za Taifa, serikali imevunja haki asilia za raia; na hivyo kuwapa sababu viongozi wa dini, wakimwemo viongozi wa Kanisa Katoliki, kukosoa na kupinga sera hizo, kwa sababu ni haramu kwa mujibu wa sheria ya maadili asilia, inayotambuliwa kikatiba, na wanayopaswa kuitetea kwa mujibu wa mamlaka yao kama viongozi wa dini.

Hivyo, tofauti na madai ya Rais Samia, matamko ya viongozi wa Kanisa Katoliki hayajavuka ukuta wa kikatiba na kisheria unaotenganisha mambo ya dini na mambo ya siasa.

Na tatu, ni hitimisho kwamba, majibu ya serikali kwa viongozi wa dini, wakimwemo viongozi wa Kanisa Katoliki, wanaokosoa sera za serikali zinazokiuka sheria ya maadili asilia, na hivyo kuvunja katiba ya nchi, ni majibu yanayokwepa hoja ya msingi, na kuongelea mambo yaliyo nje ya mjadala. Serikali inapaswa kujisahihisha na kurudi kwenye barabara ya kikatiba.

Kwa ajili ya kutetea mtazamo huu, tamko hili limegawanyika kwenye sehemu zifuatazo:

1. Usuli
2. Utangulizi
3. Masuala yanayobishaniwa kati ya serikali na kanisa katoliki
4. Utaratibu uliotumika kufanya utafiti
5. Misingi ya jurisprudensi, katiba, sheria na falsafa ya haki na majukumu
6. Matokeo ya utafiti
7. Hitimisho na mapendekezo
8. Marejeo muhimu

II. UTANGULIZI

Tangu mwezi Aprili mwaka 2025, kuna vita ya mawazo, maneno na vitendo inayoendelea kati ya serikali na Kanisa Katoliki, na ambayo napendekeza kuifupisha kwa kutumia mtiririko wa tarehe za matukio muhimu kama ifuatavyo:

1. Tarehe 30 Aprili 2025, saa 4 usiku, Padri Charles Kitima alijeruhiwa na watu wasiojulikana akiwa ndani ya eneo la Makao Makuu ya TEC, Kurasini, Dar es Salaam, ambako pia ndipo yalipo makazi yake rasmi.
2. Tarehe 02 Desemba 2025, Rais Samia akiwa anaongea na wazee wa Dar es Salaam, alidai kwamba, kupitia matamko nane yaliyotolewa na TEC tangu 2021, Kanisa Katoliki linavuka ukuta wa kikatiba na kisheria unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa nchini Tanzania. Rais Samia anaonekana kuwatuhumu viongozi wa TEC kwamba hawajui maana ya sheria dunia wala umuhimu wake katika kuendesha nchi yenye dini nyingi.
3. Tarehe 22 Disemba 2025 watu wawili, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga na Elia Phaustine Kabote, waliojitambulisha kuwa ni waumini wa Kanisa Katoliki, walidai kuwasilisha barua ya malalamiko dhidi ya Padri Charles Kitima kwa Balozi wa Papa nchini Tanzania, wakiwa wanadai kwamba Padri Kitima, ambaye pia ni Katibu Mkuu wa TEC, anavuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, kwa maana kwamba, anafanya kazi kama mshauri wa kisiasa wa CHADEMA kuhusu umuhimu na ulazima wa siasa zinazozingatia tunu na maadili ya kiutu.
4. Tarehe 25 Desemba 2025, akitoa homilia ya Krismasi, Askofu Mkuu wa Jimbo Kuu Katoliki la Dar es Salaam, Jude Thaddeus Ruwaichi, alisema kwamba vijana walioandika Barua ya kumshitaki Padre Kitima ni "wasaliti wa imani ya Kikristo" inayokataza mbinu haramu kutumika Kwa ajili ya kufanikisha lengo jema, na hivyo akawaita "malofa" Kwa sababu hiyo.
5. Tarehe 27 Desemba 2025, Mtu ambaye hakutaja jina lake, alisambaza barua ya wazi kwa Balozi wa Papa juu ya kauli ya Askofu Ruwa’ichi, kwenye mitandao ya kijamii, ikibeba “malalamiko rasmi dhidi ya kauli na utaratibu wa Askofu Mkuu Yuda Thaddeus Ruwaichi,” ambapo mwandishi alimwomba Papa kuchunguza mwenendo wa Askofu Ruwaichi ambao alidai unaenda kinyume na misingi ya Kikanuni, kwa kuingilia Mamlaka ya Vatican na kutumia lugha ya dharau dhidi ya Waumini kwa kuwaita Wasaliti wa Imani ya Kikrito wanaoendekeza njaa, na hivyo malofa.
6. Na tarehe 30 Desemba 2025, Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura, ambaye ni mseminari wa zamani aliyefukuzwa seminarini kwa sababu ya ukosefu wa wito wa kipadre rohoni mwake, alikutana na waandishi wa habari na kumlaumu Askofu Ruwaichi kwa kukiuka sheria za Kanisa katoliki, na hasa kifungu namba 212(3) kinachowapa waumini katoliki haki ya kuhoji utendaji kazi wa wakuu wa kanisa, pale waumini wanapokosa haki zao za kidini.

Baada ya kutafakari kwa makini matamshi ya umma yanayoendelea, ambayo yamechochewa na uhusiano tata kati ya TEC na Serikali nchini Tanzania, nimeamua kutoa maoni binafsi, kwa kutumia mfumo wa “amicus curiae brief,” yaani "tamko la rafiki wa mahakama ya umma."

Jukumu la tamko hili ni kuwasaidia wadau wa mahakama ya umma kufanya maamuzi sahihi kwa kuwapatia ushahidi na hoja zote muhimu katika mfumo unaoweza kupokelewa na akili kirahisi.

III. MASUALA YANAYOBISHANIWA KATI YA SERIKALI NA KANISA KATOLIKI

Swali kuu linalojibiwa na tamko hili ni hili hapa: Matamko Gani ya TEC yanayodaiwa kuvuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, na kama kweli yalivuka ukuta huo ni kwa kiasi gani yalivuka ukuta huo?

Kwa mujibu wa jadi na historia pana ya kidunia, ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha baadhi ya mambo ya kidini na baadhi ya mambo za kisiasa, ulibuniwa na wanazuoni ili kufanikisha mambo matatu.

Yaani, kulinda uhuru wa kidini katika jamii yenye dini nyingi, kwa kulinda haki za taasisi za kidini dhidi ya makucha ya kiserikali, kulinda haki za Serikali dhidi ya makucha ya kidini, na kulinda haki za taasisi moja ya kidini dhidi ya makucha ya taasisi Baki za kidini.

Hivyo, kati ya serikali na wadau baki, ukuta huu unafanya kazi kama mlango wenye bawaba zinazouruhusu kufunguka kuelekea pande mbili.

Yaani kuelekea upande wa siasa katika wakati mwafaka, na kuelekea upande wa dini katika wakati mwafaka.

Yaani, kwa upande mmoja, ukuta huu unapaswa kuruhusu mtiririko wa mawazo fulani kutoka upande wa dini kwenda upande wa siasa, na unapaswa kuzuia mtiririko wa mawazo mengine ya kidini yasiende upande wa siasa.

Na kwa upande wa pili, ukuta huu unapaswa kuruhusu mtiririko wa mawazo fulani kutoka upande wa serikali kwenda upande wa dini, na unapaswa kuzuia mtiririko wa mawazo mengine ya kisiasa yasiende upande wa dini.

Na pili, kila milango ya ukuta huu inapofunguliwa kwenda upande wowote, inapaswa kufanya kazi kama "chekecheo," yaani chujio lenye uweze wa kuzuia chembechembe zenye ukubwa unaopungua kipenyo cha urefu fulani na kuruhusu chembechembe zenye ukubwa unaozidi kipenyo cha urefu fulani kupita.

Hivyo basi, dokezo hili linapendekeza kutoa mtazamo wa kiufundi kuhusu maswali madogo yafuatayo, yakiwa ndio yanayobishaniwa na pande mbili husika, yaani:

1. Ni kweli kwamba viongozi wa TEC kwamba hawajui maana ya sheria wala umuhimu wake katika kuendesha nchi yenye dini nyingi?
2. Kama ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha "mambo ya kidini" na "mambo ya kisiasa", ni kama "chekecheo" ambalo linapaswa kutusaidia kutambua haki za taasisi za kidini dhidi ya taasisi za kisiasa, haki hizo ni zipi?
3. Kama ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha "mambo ya kidini" na "mambo ya kisiasa", ni kama "chekecheo" ambalo linapaswa kutusaidia kutambua haki za taasisi za kisiasa dhidi ya taasisi za kidini, haki hizo ni zipi?
4. Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia ni yapi na yalibeba maudhui gani?
5. Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kweli yanavuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, kama Rais Samia alivyodokeza?
6. Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kweli yanavuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini yanayowahusu TEC na mambo ya kidini yanayozihusu taasisi baki za kidini, kama Rais Samia alivyodai?
7. Kuna muumini yeyote wa Kanisa Katoliki ambaye anapaswa kukerwa na Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kiasi kwamba anastahili kuwasilisha malalamiko rasmi dhidi ya TEC mbele ya Balozi wa Papa, kama wanavyodai kina Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura?
8. Vijana walioandika Barua ya kumshtaki Padre KITIMA kwa Papa walifuata utaratibu sahihi unaitajwa ndani ya Sheria za Ianisa Katoliki?
9. Ni kweli kwamba vijana waliodai kuandika barua ya malalamiko dhidi ya Padre Kitima kwenda kwa Papa ni "malofa" kwa maana ya “waasi waliosaliti sauti ya dhamiri zao bila sababu nzuri ya kufanya hivyo"?
10. Na, Je, ni nafuu gani ambayo kila pande katika mzozo huu, yaani serikali, Kanisa Katoliki na umma mpana, unastahili?

IV. UTARATIBU ULIOTUMIKA KUFANYA UTAFITI

Utafiti huu umefanyika kwa kutumia mkakati wa "information gap analysis and evaluation," ambapo mbinu zifuarazo zilitumika:

1. Kuandaa swali kuu la utafiti,
2. Kuvunja swali kuu la utafiti katika mswali madogo nane,
3. Kubainisha taarifa zinazofahamika.
4. Kubainisha taarifa zinazokosekana.
5. Kubainisha vyanzo muhimu vya taarifa zinazokosekana, vikiwemo vitabu, makala na tovuti.
6. Kusoma vitabu, makala, tovuti na kusililiza video zenye maudhui yanayohusiana na maswali ya utafiti.
7. Kufanya uchambuzi wa taarifa zilizokuswanywa,
8. Kufanya usanisi wa taarifa hizo kwa kuongozwa na mchujo wa kiakili unaoongozwa na kanuni za kawaida za kimantiki,
9. Kuandika taarifa hii, na
10. Kuchapisha taarifa hii katika jukwaa la kidijitali la JamiiForums.com

Hatimaye, marejeo muhimu yametajwa mwishoni mwa tamko hili, na baadhi ya nakala pepe zake kuambatanishwa.

V. MISINGI YA KATIBA, SHERIA, FALSAFA YA SHERIA NA HAKI ZA WATU

Kwa ajili ya kuweza kuyajibu maswali haya kwa ukamilifu ni muhimu na lazima kujenga msingi wa kikatiba, kisheria na kifalsafa kuhusu mahusiano kati ya mambo ya dini na mambo ya siasa katika Taifa lenye dini, makabila, mapokeo, na rangi anwai.

1. Mtazamo wa kanisa katoliki kuhusu falsafa ya sheria

Kanisa Katoliki ni taasisis yenye umri wa miaka 2,000, likiwa ni mwalimu wa sheria ya maadili asilia, mwenye kuamini kwamba uwepo wake ulianzishwa na Yesu Kristo mwenyewe, ambaye aliwapa mitume wake, hasa Petro, mamlaka ya kuongoza kanisa.

Kanisa Katoliki lilianza rasmi siku ya Pentekoste ya kwanza baada ya kifo cha Yesu, ambapo mitume walipokea Roho Mtakatifu na kuanza kuhubiri Injili.

Andiko linalotumika kuhalalisha Petro kuwa papa wa kwanza ni Mathayo 16:15-19. Hivyo, Kanisa Katoliki linaamini kwamba Petro alikuwa kiongozi wa mitume na kwamba mamlaka yake ilipitishwa kwa warithi wake, ambao ni mapapa.

Mtume Petro (1 KK–68BK) anachukuliwa kuwa Papa wa kwanza, na mamlaka yake ilipitishwa kwa warithi wake.

Tangu wakati huo, Kanisa Katoliki hufanya kazi kama mtendaji wa kipekee, mwenye ushawishi, na asiye wa serikali katika mfumo wa kisheria wa kimataifa hasa kupitia Jimbo Kuu la Roma ambalo lina utu wa kisheria unaotambulika kimataifa.

Kama chombo huru, Jimbo Kuu la Roma hufanya kazi kama mamlaka ya maadili na mtendaji wa kidiplomasia anayeshiriki katika kuunda sheria za kimataifa na majadiliano ya haki za binadamu.

Katika muktadha wa mfumo wa sheria asilia za kidunia, Kanisa Katoliki hufanya kazi kama mlezi wa maadili, mwananadharia wa msingi, na sauti ya ukosoaji inayotetea uwepo wa ukweli halisi wa maadili unaopatikana kwa njia ya akili ya kibinadamu.

Ingawa mifumo ya kidunia mara nyingi huweka sheria kulingana na makubaliano ya watu binafsi au mikataba ya kijamii, Kanisa Katoliki linasisitiza kwamba sheria asilia ni utaratibu ambao haukuundwa na watu ambao hutumika kama kizio muhimu cha sheria zilizotungwa na binadamu, hasa kuhusu ulinzi wa haki za binadamu, maisha, na familia.

Kwa sababu hizi, Kanisa katoliki linafundisha na kuukubali ukweli kwamba, nchi inayoendeshwa kwa kufuata mfumo wa sheria zinazotokana na kanuni za maumbile ya watu hutegemea uwepo wa nadharia thabiti ya kisheria yenye kutoa jawabu rasmi la kifalsafa kuhusu swali lifuatala: "sheria ni kitu gani na sio kitu gani?"

Na kwa hakika, Kanisa katoliki linafundisha kuwa, Tanzania ni nchi yenye kufuata mfumo wa sheria zinazotokana na kanuni za maumbile ya watu, kwa sababu ya maneno "secular ... state" yanayotajwa katika ibara ya 3(1) ya Katiba ya nchi yetu.

Hata hivyo, katika uchambuzi huu kuna tatizo la uhalali wa matumizi ya maneno "secular ... state" katika ngazi ya kikatiba, ambao unapaswa kunyooshwa.

Sababu ni kwamba baadhi ya "wakubwa" waliamua kuchakachua katiba ya Kiswahili kwa kulichomoa kabisa neno hili.

Kwenye Katiba ya Kiingereza, ibara ya 3(1) inasomeka hivi:

"The United Republic is a democratic, secular and socialist state which adheres to multi-party democracy," (article 3(1)).​

Na kwenye Katiba ya Kiswahili, ibara hiyo inasomeka hivi:

"3(1) Jamhuri ya Muungano ni nchi ya kidemokrasia na ya kijamaa, yenye kufuata mfumo wa vyama vingi vya siasa."​

Hivyo, ni wazi kuwa, ama kimakosa au kwa makusudi, tafsiri ya ibara hii katika Katiba ya Kiswahili imeruka maneno "secular ... state," na hivyo kuifanya nakala ya Kiswahili kuwa batili kwa kiwango hicho .

Hivyo, kabla ya kuendelea na mjadala, napendekeza kurekebisha dosari hii kwa kutoa tafsiri yangu ya ibara ya 3(1) kama ifuatavyo:

"Jamhuri ya Muungano ni nchi ya kidemokrasia, yenye kufuata mfumo wa sheria zinazotokana na kanuni za maumbile ya watu, siasa ya ujamaa, na vyama vingi vya siasa" (Ibara ya 3(1)).​

Sentensi hii ni tafsiri yangu ya maneno yanayopatikana kwenye nakala ya Katiba ya nchi ya Kiingereza, ambapo nimetafsiri maneno "secular ... state" kuwa kisawe cha "nchi yenye kufuata mfumo wa sheria zinazotokana na kanuni za maumbile ya watu."

Maneno haya yanamaanisha "mfumo wa haki na majukumu asilia." Huu ni "ukweli asilia" au "maarifa asilia" yanayopatikana kupitia "milango ya maarifa asilia," ya macho, masikio, ulimi, pua, ngozi na ubongo.

Kuhusu maneno "secular ... state" nimetumia nakala ya Katiba ya Kiingereza ambayo haijachakachuliwa kama inavyopatikana kwenye tovuti ya Ofisi ya Mkaguzi na Mdhibiti Mkuu wa Hesabu za Serikali (National Audit Office).

Baada ya kusema hayo, nataka niharakishe kusema kuwa, "mfumo wa sheria zinazotokana na kanuni za maumbile ya watu" ni seti ndogo ndani ya seti kuu ya sheria zote zinazoratibu tabi za vitu anwai vilivyoko hapa duniani, mbali na watu.

Katika seti kuu tajwa kuna mfumo wa sheria za maadili ya kikristo, mfumo wa sheria za maadili ya kiislamu, mfumo wa sheria za maadili ya wapagani, na orodha inaendelea.

Wakristo, Waislamu, Wayahudi na dini kadhaa baki ni waumini wa dini zinazoongozwa na "mfumo wa sheria zinazotokana na kanuni za kiufunuo" kama unavyofahamika kupitia msahafu wa dini husika.

Kuna mfumo wa sheria za kuongoza tabia za vitu hai kama vile watu, wanyama na mimea; sheria za kuongoza tabia za vitu visivyo na akili kama vile mimea, wanyama hayawani na wadudu; sheria za kuongoza tabia za vitu visivyo hai kama vile sayari na miamba; na orodha inaendelea.

Kwa kuzingatia kitu kinachoitwa "Object Oriented Thought Process" inayojumuisha "Encapsulation, Abstraction, Inheritance, and Polymorphism," mchoro ufuatao unaonyesha uhusiano wa kingazi uliopo kati ya seti hizi za sheria, seti ya juu kabisa ikiwa ni "ultimate law" inayotoka kwa "ultimate law giver."


View attachment 3533357
Source: Own work based on Matt Weisfeld (2008), The Object-Oriented Thought Process (Pearson Education); William S. Brewbaker III (2006); and William S. Brewbaker III, What Is Christian Legal Thought, 2 J. Christian Legal Thought 5 (2012).

Wanateolojia wanasema "ultimate law giver" ni Mungu, wakati wanasiasa wanasema wanaweza kusonga mbele kwa msaada wa mchujo wa kifikra pekee bila kukanusha wala kukiri uwepo wa Mungu huyo.

Kwa mujibu wa waandishi Anver Emon, Matthew Levering na David Novak (2014) katika kitabu chao "Natural Law: A Jewish, Christian and Islamic Trialogue," yote hii ni mifumo inayofanana kwa kiasi kikubwa na kutofautiana pia. Nitafupisha maudhui na muundo wa kila mfumo wa kimaadili hapa chini.

Mfumo wa sheria za maagizo ya kiserikali (positive law)

Ni maoni yangu kuwa, ndani ya Katiba ya Tanzania maneno "secular ... state" yanapaswa kutafsiriwa kwa kusoma pamoja vifungu vyote vinavyoongelea chimbuko la haki na majukumu ya watu yaliyotajwa katika katiba hii.

Vifungu hivyo ndani ya Katiba ya Tanzania (1977) ni hivi hapa: 8(1)(b), 9(a), 9(f), 9(g) na 11(2). Yaani:

• “8(1)(b) Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania ni Nchi inayofuata misingi ya demokrasia na haki ya kijamii, na kwa hiyo lengo kuu la serikali litakuwa ni ustawi wa wananchi.”
• “9(a) Mamlaka ya Nchi na vyombo vyake vyote vinawajibika kuelekeza sera na shughuli zake zote katika lengo la kuhakikisha kwamba utu na haki nyinginezo zote za binadamu zinaheshimiwa na kuthaminiwa.”
• “9(f) Mamlaka ya Nchi na vyombo vyake vyote vinawajibika kuelekeza sera na shughuli zake zote katika lengo la kuhakikisha kwamba heshima ya binadamu inahifadhiwa na kudumishwa kwa kufuata Kanuni za Tangazo la Dunia kuhusu Haki za Binadamu.”
• “9(g) Mamlaka ya Nchi na vyombo vyake vyote vinawajibika kuelekeza sera na shughuli zake zote katika lengo la kuhakikisha kwamba Serikali na vyombo vyake vyote vya umma vinatoa nafasi zilizo sawa kwa raia wote, wake kwa waume, bila ya kujali rangi, kabila, dini au hali ya mtu.”
• “9(k) Mamlaka ya Nchi na vyombo vyake vyote vinawajibika kuelekeza sera na shughuli zake zote katika lengo la kuhakikisha kwamba nchi inatawaliwa kwa kufuata misingi ya demokrasia.”
• “11(2) Kila mtu anayo haki ya kujielimisha, na kila raia atakuwa huru kutafuta elimu katika fani anayopenda hadi kufikia upeo wowote kulingana na stahili na uwezo wake.”
• "17(1) Kila raia wa Jamhuri ya Muungano anayo haki ya kwenda kokote katika Jamhuri ya Muungano..."

Kwa mujibu wa vifungu hivyo vya katiba, mchujo wa kimantiki unaofanywa na Kanisa Katoliki unaonyesha kuwa, Tanzania tunao "mfumo wa sheria zinazotokana na kanuni za maumbile ya watu" wenye kutambulishwa na mambo makuu matatu yafuatayo:

• Maumbile ya kiutu: Kila mtu ana akili na utashi
  • Hazina ya "akili" ya "kujielimisha" hadi kuondokana na "ujinga" kulingana na "uwezo wake” asilia wa kujifunza kutokana na mazingira yake (ibara ya 5(2)(b), 9(i), 11(2)).
  • Hazina ya uhuru unaomwezesha kufanya "uchaguzi" na ubaguzi wa "kidemokrasia" katika sekta zote za maisha yake (ibara ya 5(1), 9(k)), na
  • Hazina ya "mwili" unaomwezesha kila mtu "kwenda kokote" anakotaka kufika (ibara ya 17(1), 37(2)).
• Tunu zilizo kielelezo cha malengo ya kiutu: Kila mtu anayo tamaa asilia ya kufukuzia tunu za kitu, zenye kumwelekeza katika "ustawi" kamili, tunu hizo zikiwa ni pamoja na: utu, ustawi, maendeleo, usawa mbele ya utu, heshima ya binadamu, usawa mbele ya sheria, uhai, uhuru, uhuru dhidi ya umaskini, uhuru dhidi ya ujinga, uhuru dhidi ya maradhi, faragha, kusafiri, kufikiri, kueleza mawazo binafsi, uhuru wa maoni, uhuru wa imani, uhuru wa kushirikiana na watu wengine kuuunda vikundi vya kijamii, uhuru wa kushiriki katika shughuli za umma, kazi, ujira, elimu, mali (ibara ya 8(1)(b), 9, na 12-30)
• Maadili yanayoongoza matendo ya kiutu: Kila mtu anayo hulka ya kufuata kanuni za maadili zinazomwezesha kufanya "uchaguzi" wa matendo gani atekeleze na matendo yapi ayakwepe ili aweze kufikia "ustawi" wake kwa kamilifu. (ibara ya 12-30).

Kwa ajili ya ufafanuzi, "mfumo wa sheria zinazotokana na kanuni za maumbile ya watu" unazo sifa zifuatazo:

• Muundo wa binadamu: Mwili, akili, utashi huru, na tama ya kufukuzia ustawi wake kwa kupigania mema na kukwepa mabaya.
• Nafasi ya mchujo wa kiakili: Mchujo wa kiakili ni muhimu katika kutafsiri kanuni za maumbile na mapokeo ya kijadi.
• Vyanzo vya maadili: Akili, maumbile na mapokeo ya kijadi
• Chimbuko la akili: KIla mtu anazaliwa nazo, lakini hakuna uhakika kama zinatoka kwa Mungu au hapana.
• Chimbuko la maadili asilia: Mchujo wa akili ya kibinadamu
• Tunu muhimu: Madili asilia yanalenga kulinda tunu muhimu kama vile utu, uhuru, uhai, afya, maarifa, ndoa, familia na mali.
• Ustawi wa watu: Kuzingatia maadili ya asilia kunaleta ustawi wa watu na kuyakaidi kunaleta misha mabaya.
• Uhusiano kati ya maadili asilia na maadili ya ufunuo: Maadili asilia yanalaliana na maadili ya ufunuo kwa kiwango hile ambacho mchujo wa kiali wa watu wote utakionyesha.

Mfumo wa maadili ya Kiyahudi

• Mwasisi: Nabii Muda wa Torati
• Muundo wa binadamu: Mwili, akili, utashi huru, na tama ya kufukuzia ustawi wake kwa kupigania mema na kukwepa mabaya.
• Nafasi ya mchujo wa kiakili: Mchujo wa kiakili ni muhimu katika kutafsiri ufunuo, maumbile na mapokeo.
• Vyanzo vya maadili: Akili, Maumbile na Ufunuo wa Agano la Kale
• Chimbuko la akili: Mungu
• Chimbuko la maadili asilia: Mungu
• Tunu muhimu: Madili ya kidini yanalenga kulinda tunu muhimu kama vile utu, uhuru, uhai, afya, maarifa, ndoa, familia na mali.
• Ustawi wa watu: Kuzingatia maadili ya Kidini kunaleta ustawi wa watu na kuyakaidi kunaleta misha mabaya.
• Uhusiano kati ya maadili asilia na maadili ay ufunuo: Maadili ay ufunuo yanakamilisha maadili asilia.

Tunaweza kuonyesha muundo wa mfumo huu kwa msaada wa "mchoro wa kimfumo" wenye sehemu tatu zifuatazo:

Mfumo wa maadili ya Kiislamu

• Mwasisi: Mtume Mohamed
• Muundo wa binadamu: Mwili, akili, utashi huru, na tama ya kufukuzia ustawi wake kwa kupigania mema na kukwepa mabaya.
• Nafasi ya mchujo wa kiakili: Mchujo wa kiakili ni muhimu katika kutafsiri ufunuo, maumbile na mapokeo.
• Vyanzo vya maadili: Akili, Maumbile na Ufunuo wa Kurani na mapokeo ya Sunnah
• Chimbuko la akili: Mungu
• Chimbuko la maadili asilia: Mungu
• Tunu muhimu: Madili ya kidini yanalenga kulinda tunu muhimu kama vile utu, uhuru, uhai, afya, maarifa, ndoa, familia na mali.
• Ustawi wa watu: Kuzingatia maadili ya Kidini kunaleta ustawi wa watu na kuyakaidi kunaleta misha mabaya.
• Uhusiano kati ya maadili asilia na maadili ay ufunuo: Maadili ay ufunuo yanakamilisha maadili asilia.

Tunaweza kuonyesha muundo wa mfumo huu kwa msaada wa "mchoro wa kimfumo" wenye sehemu tatu zifuatazo:

Mfumo wa maadili ya Kikristo

• Mwasisi: Yesu Kristo
• Muundo wa binadamu: Mwili, akili, utashi huru, na tama ya kufukuzia ustawi wake kwa kupigania mema na kukwepa mabaya.
• Nafasi ya mchujo wa kiakili: Mchujo wa kiakili ni muhimu katika kutafsiri ufunuo, maumbile na mapokeo.
• Vyanzo vya maadili: Akili, Maumbile, Ufunuo wa Biblia na mapokeo kutikana na maandiko ya mababa wa Kanisa
• Chimbuko la akili: Mungu
• Chimbuko la maadili asilia: Mungu
• Tunu muhimu: Madili ya kidini yanalenga kulinda tunu muhimu kama vile utu, uhuru, uhai, afya, maarifa, ndoa, familia na mali.
• Ustawi wa watu: Kuzingatia maadili ya Kidini kunaleta ustawi wa watu na kuyakaidi kunaleta misha mabaya.
• Uhusiano kati ya maadili asilia na maadili ay ufunuo: Maadili ay ufunuo yanakamilisha maadili asilia.

Hivyo basi, kwa mujibu wa falsafa ya sheria (jurisprudence), kuongelea "mfumo wa sheria zinazotokana na kanuni za maumbile ya watu" ni kuongelea aina mojawapo ya sheria zinazoweza kugundulika hapa ulimwenguni (Wayne Harry Lott 2016).

Kwa pamoja sheria hizo zote zinaunda seti kuu ya sheria, seti ambayo kwa hapa nitairejea kama "Ultimate Law," yaani "Seti Kuu".

Hayati Profesa Thomas Aquinas (1225BK–1274BK) aliibatiza hii "seti kuu" jila la "Eternal Law," lakini sikubaliana na jina hili, kwa sababu niliozionyesha hapo juu. Mie nimeibatiza jina la "Ultimate Law."

Hapa napenda kuongeza kuwa, katika mtazamo wa kutofungamana na dini yoyote, tunapaswa kuelewa kuwa chimbuko la "Ultimate Law" ni "Ultimate Reality."

Na kwa ujumla, "Ultimate Reality" anaweza kuwa Mungu wa Biblia, Mungu wa Kurani, Mungi wa Wahindu, Mungu wa Wabuda, Mungu wa Wapagani, au Mungu Asiyejulikana. Laini, sio kazi ya wanasiasa kubaini mungu wa kweli ni yupi.

Kutokana na yote haya, sasa tuone fasili ya neno "sheria" bila kujali tunaongelea sheria iliyo katika tabaka gani.

Kwa mujibu wa Angus Brook (2019:1-5) sheria zilizomo katika seti kuu zinafanana kwa sababu moja kuu. Yaani ni kanuni zinazokubaliana na fasili ya jumla ya neno "sheria" isemayo kuwa:

"Law is a descriptive, prescriptive or imperative rule that governs a process of movement or change, pertaining to humans, animals, plants or inanimate physical objects, from potentiality to actuality" (Angus Brook 2019:1-5, my paraphrase).​

Fasili hii inafanana sana na ile iliyotolewa na Profesa Thomas Aquinas anayesema kuwa:

“Law is a certain rule and measure of acts whereby [an entity] is induced to [move from potency to] act or is restrained from acting” (Summa Theologica, 1–2, q. 90, aa. 1, 3; Summa contra Gentiles., 3, 114).​

Kuhusu fasili hizi, ni muhimu kuelewa kuwa:

The phrase "moving from potency to act" is a core metaphysical concept defining motion (change) as the process where something transitions from its potential (what it could be) to its actuality (what it is). ​

​

For example: A coffee cup is potentially hot, becomes actually cold (change in temperature); A student is potentially knowledgeable, becomes actually knowledgeable (learning); a seed is potentially a tree, becomes actually a tree (growth/generation); and a traveler from Dar to Dodoma is potentially at Dodoma, and becomes actually at Dodoma (motion from one point to another). ​

​

The transformation from "potency to act" requires an external "mover" as the ultimate source of all actualization, in these cases, the mover is simply a "law."​

Na kwa kujumuisha sasa tunaweza kuzigawa sheria zote katika makundi matatu, yaani:

• Sheria zinazofafanua maadili (prescriptive laws/ought-laws);
• Sheria zinazofafanua mila, desturi na maagizo ya serikali nchi (imperative laws/must-laws); na
• Sheria zinazofafanua misingi ya kimaumbile (descriptive laws/is-laws).

Kundi la kwanza ni sheria zinazofafanua maadili asilia. Hizi ni sheria zinazotaja "haki na majukumu" yanayogunduliwa na watu kwa kutumia milango sita ya fahamu asilia, yaani macho, pua, ulimi, ngozi, masikio na mchujo wa kiakili.

Sheria hizi zinaongelea upaswa wa kimaadili, yaani "moral-ought-ness," unaotamkwa na walinzi wa maadili ya jamii, ambao ni wanafalsafa. Zinatusaidia kutofautisha mema na mabaya. mfano ni:

• Usiibe mali ya jirani yako;
• Usiue mtu asiye na hatia;
• Usiseme uwongo;
• Wahesimu wazazi wake;

Sheria hizi hazibadiliki, zinaweza kuvunjwa na watu, zinagusa nchi zote duniani, na zilikuwepo tangu milele yote.

Kundi la pili ni sheria zinazofafanua mila, desturi na mapokeo ya kidini. Hizi ni sheria zinazotaja "haki na majukumu" yanayogunduliwa na manabii waliobahatika kuwasiliana na Mungu moja kwa moja, kwa niaba ya watu baki.

Sheria hizi zinaongelea upaswa wa kimaadili, yaani "moral-ought-ness," unaotamkwa kwenye misahafu ya dini za kisekta. Kwa mfano:

• Sheria ya kusali mara tatu kwa siku katika uslamu;
• Sheria za sakramenti katika ukristo;
• Sheria za vazi la hijabu katika dini ya kiislamu.

Hizi ni sheria ambazo hazitungwi na watu, raia wanaweza kuzivunja, haziwezi kubadilishwa na watu, zinatumika ndani ya jumuiya ya waumini ambao ni wafuasi wa dini husika, na misahafu inayozitaja haikuwepo tangu milele yote.

Kundi la tatu ni sheria zinazofafanua mila, desturi na maagizo ya serikali nchi. Hizi ni sheria zinazoongelea matendo ambayo ni lazima kufanyika au kuepukwa, kwa mujibu wa maamuzi ya bunge, yaani "imperative laws," zinazoongelea ulazima, yaani "statutory-must-ness."

Nchini Tanzania, tangu tupate uhuru mwaka 1961 mpaka sasa hivi mwaka 2025 kuna sheria 450 za aina hii. Sheria hizo zinajumuisha:

• Sheria ya vyama vya siasa;
• Sheria ya ajira na mahusiano kazini;
• Sheria ya pensheni;
• Sheria ya mazingira;
• Sheria ya uchaguzi;
• Na orodha inaendelea.

Hizi ni sheria zinazotungwa na viongozi wa watu kupitia vikao vinavyoongozwa na kanuni ya wengi wape, raia wanaweza kuzivunja, zinaweza kubadilishwa na viongozi waliozitunga, zinatumika ndani ya nchi pekee, na hazikuwepo tangu milele yote.

Kundi la nne ni sheria zinazofafanua misingi ya kimaumbile. Hizi ni sheria zinazoongelea mabadiliko asilia ambayo hujirudia katika namna inayoyabirika, yaani "descriptive laws."

Ni sheria zinazoongelea utabirifu wa tabia za vitu visivyo na akili, kama zinavyosomeka katika masomo ya fizikia, kemia na bayolojia, yaani "descriptive-is-ness." Hapa kuna mifano ifuatayo:

• Sheria inayolazimisha kitu chochote chenye uzito kudondoka chini badala ya kupaa juu;
• Sheria inayoruhusu sayari, nyota, na mwezi kuzunguka katika njia zake bila kugongana;
• Sheria inayoruhusu binadamu kuza binadamu badala ya kuzaa mbuzi;
• Sheria inayoruhusu mimba kubadilika na kuwa mtu mzima;
• Sheria inayoruhusu yai la kuku kubadilika na kuwa kuku badala ya kuwa bata,
• Sheria inayoruhusu mbegu ya mchungwa kubadilika hadi kuwa mti wa mchungwa badala ya kuwa mti wa mpera;
• Sheria inayoruhusu mapafu kuchuja kaboni badala ya kuchuja sumu kama linavyofanya ini.
• Sheria inayoruhusu figo kuchuja mkojo badala ya kuchuja kanoni kama yanavyofanya mapafu.
• Sheria zinazoruhusu jicho kuona, sikio kusikia, pua kunusa, ngozi ya vidole kupapasa, na akili kufanya mchujo wa kimantiki.
• Sheria inayoruhusu muungano wa kikemia kati ya oksijeni na hydrojeni kuunda maji badala ya mvinyo;
• Sheria ya ugavi na utashi katika uchumi inayoratibu mabadiliko ya bei sokoni;

Sheria hizi hazibadiliki, haziwezi kuvunjwa na watu, zinagusa nchi zote duniani, na zilikuwepo tangu milele yote.

Majumuisho muhimu kuhusu aina za sheria: Kulingana na John Stuart Mackenzie (2004:163ff), makundi haya manne ya sheria yanaweza kuunganishwa na kutofautisha kwa kutumia vigezo vikuu vinne. Kuna sheria:

• Zinazoweza kubadilika na zisizoweza kubadilika (changeable vs unchangeable laws);
• Zinazoweza kukiukwa na watu na zisizoweza kukiukwa (violable vs inviolable laws);
• Zilizokuwepo tangu milele yote na ambazo zinatungwa na watu siku hadi siku (eternal vs occurent laws);
• Zinazotumika nchi zote na zisizotumika nchi zote (global vs local laws).

Kwa kuunganisha makundi haya manne tunaweza kupata zaidi ya aina 16 za sheria. Hizi ni seti ndogo 16 za sheria zilizo ndani ya seti kuu ya sheria zote zinazoongoza mabadiliko yanayoambatana na matukio au matendo yote ulimwenguni.

Thomas Aquinas aliibatiza seti hii jina la "Eternal Law". Lakini, kutokana na uchambuzi uliofanyika hapo juu ni wazi kuwa jina hilo ni "misnomer".

Kwa hapa nimependekeza kuwa hii seti kuu ya sheria zote iitwe "Ultimate Law," na kwamba maudhui yake yanaweza kugunduliwa kwa njia tofauti.

Mfano, Waislamu wanagundua baadhi ya sheria zilizomo katika "Ultimate Law" kwa kutumia msahafu wa Kurani; na hivyo kugundua "mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo" kwa mujibu wa dini ya Kiislamu.

Wakristo wanagundua baadhi ya sheria zilizomo katika "Ultimate Law" kwa kutumia msahafu wa Biblia; na hivyo kugundua "mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo" kwa mujibu wa dini ya Kikristo.

Wahindu wanagundua baadhi ya sheria zilizomo katika "Ultimate Law" kwa kutumia msahafu wa Kihindu; na hivyo kugundua "mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo" kwa mujibu wa dini ya Kihindu.

Wabuda wanagundua baadhi ya sheria zilizomo katika "Ultimate Law" kwa kutumia miwani ya msahafu wa Kibuda; na hivyo kugundua "mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo" kwa mujibu wa dini ya Kibuda.

Waumini wa dini baki zipatazo 1,000 hadi sasa watagundua baadhi ya sheria zilizomo katika "Ultimate Law" kwa kutumia miwani ya msahafu yao; na hivyo kugundua "mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo" kwa mujibu wa misahafu ya dini husika.

Na wanasayansi, wanafalsafa na wapagani wanagundua baadhi ya sheria zilizomo katika "Ultimate Law" kwa kutumia milango sita ya fahamu, yaani macho, masikio, pua, ulimi, ngozi na mchujo wa kimantiki; na hivyo kugundua "mfumo wa haki na majukumu asilia" kwa mujibu wa mifereji asilia ya maarifa.

Uhusiano kati ya sheria za maumbile, sheria za kidini na sheria za nchi: Katika muktadha huu, mchujo wa kimantiki unaonyesha kuwa, katika jamii yenye dini nyingi zilizogawanyika katika madhehenu anwai, mambo manne yanawezekana kuhusu chimbuko la ukweli unaotumiwa na serikali katika kubuni na kutekeleza sera za kuendesha nchi. Yaani:

• Serikali inayoendesha nchi kwa kufuata mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo yanayokubaliwa na dini mojawapo na kuifanya dini hiyo kuwa dini ya kitaifa, lakini bila kufuta haki ya uhuru wa dhamiri kuhusu "mambo ya dini," na hivyi dini zingine kubaki zikiwa ni dini za daraja la pili; au
• Serikali inayoendesha nchi kwa kufuata mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo unaokubaliwa na dini zote zilizopo nchini (religious doctrines intersection), lakini bila kuifanya dini yoyote kuwa dini rasmi ya kitaifa na bila kufuta haki ya uhuru wa dhamiri kuhusu "mambo ya dini"; au
• Serikali inayoendesha nchi kwa kufuata mfumo wa haki na majukumu asilia badala ya mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo, ambapo serikali hii huchukua msimamo kwamba haina uhakika kama miungu wapo au hawapo, na hivyo, kuacha swali hilo lijibiwe na raia mmoja mmoja kwa kutumia haki yake ya uhuru wa dhamiri kuhusu "mambo ya dini."
• Serikali inayoendesha nchi kwa kufuata mfumo wa haki na majukumu asilia badala ya mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo, ambapo serikali hii huchukua msimamo kwamba hakuna miungu, na hivyo, kufuta haki ya uhuru wa dhamiri kuhusu "mambo ya dini."

2. Misingi ya katiba

Kwa kuzingatia ufafanuzi wa kisemantiki hapo juu, sasa naweza kusema kwa kujiamini kuwa nchini Tanzania, mahusiano kati ya taasisi za dini na serikali yanaratibiwa kwa kuzingatia mwongozo wa kikatiba unaopatikana katika ibara ya 3(1) kama ikisomwa pamoja na ibara ya 9(g), 13(5), 19(1), 19(2) na 19(3).

Na ibara hizi zinasomeka kama ifuatavyo:

1. "Jamhuri ya Muungano ni nchi ya kidemokrasia, yenye kufuata mfumo wa haki na majukumu asilia badala ya mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo, siasa ya ujamaa, na vyama vingi vya siasa" (Ibara ya 3(1)).
2. "Kwa hiyo, Mamlaka ya nchi na vyombo vyake vyote vinawajibika kuelekeza sera nashughuli zake zote katika lengo la kuhakikisha... kwamba Serikali na vyombo vyake vyote vya ummavinatoa nafasi zilizo sawa kwa raia wote, wake kwawaume, bila ya kujali rangi, kabila, dini au hali yamtu" (Ibara ya 9(g)).
3. "Kwa madhumuni ya ufafanuzi wa masharti ya ibara hiineno "kubagua" maana yake ni kutimiza haja, haki au mahitajimengineyo kwa watu mbalimbali kwa kuzingatia utaifa wao,kabila, pahala walipotokea, maoni yao ya kisiasa, rangi, dini, jinsia au hali yao ya maisha kwa namna ambayo watu wa ainafulani wanafanywa au kuhesabiwa kuwa dhaifu au duni nakuwekewa vikwazo au masharti ya vipingamizi ambapo watu waaina nyingine wanatendewa tofauti au wanapewa fursa au faidailiyoko nje ya masharti au sifa za lazima, isipokuwa kwamba neno "kubagua" halitafafanuliwa kwa namna ambayo itaizuia Serikalikuchukua hatua za makusudi zenye lengo la kurekebishamatatizo katika jamii." (13(5) )
4. "Kila mtu anastahili kuwa na uhuru wa mawazo, imani na uchaguzi katika mambo ya dini, pamoja na uhuru wa mtu kubadilisha dini au imani yake." (Ibara ya 19(1) )
5. "Bila ya kuathiri sheria zinazohusika za Jamhuri yaMuungano, kazi ya kutangaza dini, kufanya ibada na kueneza dini itakuwa ni huru na jambo la hiari ya mtu ya binafsi, na shughuli na uendeshaji wa jumuiya za dini zitakuwa nje ya shughuli za mamlaka ya nchi." (Ibara ya 19(2))
6. "Kila palipotajwa neno 'dini' katika ibara hii ifahamikekwamba maana yake ni pamoja na madhehebu ya dini, namaneno mengineyo yanayofanana au kuambatana na neno hilonayo yatatafsiriwa kwa maana hiyo." (Ibara ya 19(3) )

Kwa tafsiri yangu, maneno "mambo ya kidini" yanayoongelewa katika ibara ya 19(1) yanarejea "haki na majukumu ya kidini." Kwa hapa yatachukuliwa kama kinyume cha "mambo ya kisiasa" yanayorejea "haki na majukumu ya kisiasa" kama yanavyotekelezwa na taasisi mbalimbali za kitaifa.

3. Misingi ya sheria

Mpaka sasa, Tanzania hatuna sheria maalum iliyotungwa na Bunge kwa ajili ya kufafanua vifungu hivi vya kikatiba juu ya mfumo mwafaka wa mahusiano kati ya dini na serikali.

Lakini, kuna sheria kadhaa zimetafsiri ibara za katika na kuzitolewa mwongozo wa kisekta katika uendeshaji wa nchi. Baadhi ya sheria zinajadiliwa hapa chini.

(a) Sheria ya vyama vya siasa

Kwa mujibu wa ibara ya 19(1)(c), 19(2)(a)(i) na 27(6), katika sheria ya vyama vya siasa, sura ya 258, ya mwaka 2023, zimepiga marufuku vyama vya siasa kuendesha shughuli zake kwa kufuata mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kidini kama unavyopatikana kwenye misahafu na mapokeo ya kidini.

Tunasoma haya:

• "A political party shall not qualify for provisional registration unless...its membership is voluntary and open to the citizens of the United Republic without discrimination on account of gender, disability, religious belief, race, tribe, ethnic origin, profession or occupation" (19(1)(c)).​
• "A political party shall not qualify for provisional registration where, by its constitution, rules and policies or activities ... it aims to advocate or further the interests of ... any religious belief or group" (19(2)(a)(i)).​
• "A person shall not use religion or religious organisation to further the objectives of a political party." (27(6)). ​

(b) Sheria ya Ajira na Mahusiano Kazini

Kifungu cha 7(4) cha Sheria ya Ajira na Mahusiano Kazini (Na. 6 toleo la 2023) kinawakataza waajiri kuwabagua wafanyakazi moja kwa moja au kwa njia isiyo ya moja kwa moja kwa misingi ikiwemo dini, maoni ya kisiasa, rangi, rangi, jinsia, hali ya ndoa, ulemavu, na umri.

(c) Sheria ya vyama vya kijamii

Ibara ya 2(f) ya sheria ya vyama vya kijamii, sura ya 337 toleo la 2023, inatumika kusajili vyama vya kidini na inatoa fasili ifuatayo ya neno "society", ambapo, ibara hii inasema kuwa

"The word 'society' means a non-partisan and non-political association of ten or more persons established for professional, social, cultural, religion or economic benefits or welfare of its members, formed and registered under this Act, but does not include... a political party formed and registered under the Political Parties Act."

Hivyo, chini ya ibara ya 2(f) kuna ukuta wa kisheria unaotenganisha chama cha siasa na taasisi ya kidini.

(d) Sheria ya makosa ya jinai

Kanuni ya Adhabu, Sura ya 16 toleo la 2023, chini ya Sura ya XIV, hasa Kifungu cha 125 (Tusi kwa dini) na 129 (Maneno yanayoumiza hisia za kidini) hutumika kuzuia Makosa Yanayohusiana na Dini.

(e) Majumuisho muhimu

Vifungu hivi vya kikatiba na kisheria vina maana kwamba mambo ya dini na mambo ya siasa yanapaswa kutenganishwa kwa kiwango ambacho kitahakikisha haki, utulivu wa umma, na serikali inayowatendea raia wote kwa usawa, bila kujali imani yao. Yaani:

• Hakuna Vyama vya Siasa vya Kidini: Inakataza uundaji wa chama cha siasa kinachotegemea utambulisho wa kidini au imani, ili kuzuia mgawanyiko katika misingi ya kidini.
• Kampeni za Kisiasa: Sehemu za ibada (mahekalu, misikiti, makanisa) haziwezi kutumika kama majukwaa ya kampeni za uchaguzi, mikutano ya kisiasa, au kuomba kura kwa chama au mgombea maalum.
• Kukatazwa kwa Matamshi ya Chuki: Wanasiasa wanapigwa marufuku kutumia maneno ya kidini ili kuleta uadui, au vurugu kati ya vikundi tofauti vya kidini au kijamii.
• Kutoegemea upande wowote kwa Serikali: Serikali inatarajiwa kubaki bila upande wowote na bila upendeleo kuhusu utekelezwaji wa mambo ya kidini, kuhakikisha utulivu wa umma, uvumilivu, na kutobagua.
• Utungaji sera na Sheria: Ingawa imani binafsi za mwanasiasa zinaweza kushawishi mbinu zao za kisiasa, sheria na sera za umma zinapaswa kutegemea mchujo halali wa kimantiki unaowaunganisha raia wote na kuleta manufaa ya wote, pasipo kuzingatia maagizo ya mafundisho maalum ya kidini.
• Kulinda Haki za Mtu Binafsi: Hatua hii husaidia kulinda uhuru wa dini na imani kwa raia wote, wakiwemo walio wachache na wasioamini, kwa kuhakikisha hakuna dini au mfumo mmoja wa imani unaotawala ajenda ya serikali kwa kutumia ukweli wa kiufunuo.

4. Misingi ya falsafa kuhusu Haki za binadamu

Kifalsafa, chimbuko la "mfumo wa haki na majkumu asilia" ni imani kwamba matendo mabaya kama vile kuiba ni mabaya, sio kwa sababu yanakatazwa na Mungu anayetajwa katika misahafu ya kidini, bali Mungu huyo anayakataza matendo haya kwa sababu ni mabaya.

Kwa hiyo, hitimisho ni kwamba, katika mipaka ya akili ya binadamu, tunaweza, na tunapaswa, kutafuta maelezo asilia kuhusu ubaya wa matendo yetu, bila kulazimika kuchungulia kwenye misahafu wala kuangalia katika mapokeo ya kidini.

Maana ya haki na majukumu

Kulingana na maandiko ya John Finnis 2011:199-205) pamoja na Manuel G. Velasquez (2014:96-111), tangu enzi za Mgiriki aitwaye Aristotle (384–322 KK), Muitaliano aitwaye Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274BK), Mjerumani aitwaye Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), Mmarekani aitwaye Germaine Grisez (1929-2018), Mtanzania aitwaye Julius Nyerere (1922-1999), hadi leo, wanazuoni wanakubaliana kuhusu jawabu la swali lifuatalo:

Haki za binadamu ni kitu gani, sio kitu gani, zina umuhimu gani, na matendo gani yanahesabika kuwa haki za binadamu?
Hasa, wanazuoni hawa wanakubaliana kuwa kila haki ya binadamu inayofahamika inaongelea mambo sita kwa mpigo, yaani:

• Madai (U) aliyo nayo mtu wa kwanza dhidi ya mtu wa pili (claim);
• Mleta madai (V), yaani mtu wa kwanza aliye na madai dhidi ya mtu wa pili (claim-holder);
• Mjibu madai (W), yaani mtu wa pili anayepaswa kutekeleza madai ya mtu wa kwanza (duty-bearer);
• Wajibu (X) unaopaswa kutimizwa na mtu wa pili kwa kufanya au kujizuia kufanya kitendo fulani (duty);
• Tunu (Y) ambayo mtu wa kwanza anapaswa kuwa huru kunufaika nayo (human good);
• Sababu au kigezo (Z) kinachohalalisha madai ya mtu wa kwanza dhidi ya mtu wa pili (justification).

Kwa mfano, katika uhusiano wa mwajiri, mwajiriwa, ujira, mahitaji ya msingi, na kazi iliyofanyika, mchnganuo uko kama ifuatavyo:

• Madai (claim) ni ujira, yaani mshahara unaopaswa kulipwa baada ya kufanya kazi
• Mleta madai (claim-holder) ni mwajiriwa,
• Mbeba jukumu la kujibu madai (duty-bearer) ni mwajiri mwenye jukumu la kulioa mshahara,
• Lengo la kujibu madai (target human good) ni kumwezesha mwajiriwa kujitimizia mahitaji yake ya msingi (chakula, mavazi, malazi, nauli, karo ya watoto, kodi ya pango, umeme, maji), na
• Sababu au kigezo cha kuhalalisha uwepo wa madai (justification) ni kazi iliyofanyika kwa mujibu wa mkataba.

Kwa ujumla, wanazuoni wanakubaliana kuwa haki zote zinazofahamika, zinaweza kugawanwa kwenye makundi manne yafuatayo, bila kubaki:

• Haki za “madai chanya” (positive claim rights),
• Haki za “madai hasi” (negative claim rights),
• Haki za “uhuru chanya” (positive liberty rights) na
• Haki za “uhuru hasi” (negative liberty rights).

Ufafanuzi mfupi wa haki hizi ni kama ifuatavyo:

• Haki ya “madai chanya” (positive claim right) ni madai aliyo nayo mtu wa kwanza (U) dhidi ya mtu wa pili (V), ambapo mtu wa pili anakuwa na wajibu wa kufanya kitendo fulani (W), kwa ajili ya kumwezesha mtu wa kwanza kunufaika na tunu fulani iliyo stahiki yake (X), kwa sababu ya uwepo wa kigezo (Z) kinachohalalisha madai husika.
• Haki ya “madai hasi” (negative claim right) ni madai (U) aliyo nayo mtu wa kwanza (V) dhidi ya mtu wa pili (W), ambapo mtu wa pili anakuwa na wajibu wa kujizuia kufanya kitendo fulani (X), kwa ajili ya kumruhusu mtu wa kwanza kuwa huru kunufaika na tunu fulani iliyo stahiki yake (Y), kwa sababu ya uwepo wa kigezo (Z) kinachohalalisha madai husika.
• Haki ya “uhuru chanya” (positive liberty right) ni madai (u) aliyo nayo mtu wa kwanza (V) dhidi ya mtu wa pili (W), ambapo mtu wa pili anakuwa na wajibu wa kuacha kuingilia hiari ya mtu wa kwanza kufanya kitendo fulani (X), kwa ajili ya kujiwezesha kunufaika na tunu fulani iliyo stahiki yake (Y) kwa njia hiyo, kwa sababu ya kutokuwepo kwa kigezo (Z) kinachomzuia kufanya kitendo hicho.
• Haki ya “uhuru hasi” (negative liberty right) ni madai (U) aliyo nayo mtu wa kwanza (V) dhidi ya mtu wa pili (W), ambapo mtu wa pili anakuwa na wajibu wa kuacha kuingilia hiari ya mtu wa kwanza kuacha kufanya kitendo fulani (X), kwa ajili ya kujiwezesha kunufaika na tunu fulani iliyo stahiki yake (Y) kwa njia hiyo, kwa sababu ya kutokuwepo kwa kigezo (Z) kinachomlazimisha kufanya kitendo hicho.

Hata hivyo, wanazuoni wanatofautiana kuhusu sababu ya kuhalalisha uwepo wa madai yanayohusiana na haki husika.

Chimbuko la uhalali wa haki

Baadhi ya vigezo mbadala vinavyopendekezwa ni kanuni ya kimaadili inayotamka uwepo wa haki fulani (moral law), kanuni ya kibunge inayotamka uwepo wa haki fulani (positive law), heshima ya utu wa binadamu (human dignity), misukumo ya tamaa asilia za kiutu (natural human inclinations), tunu za kibinadamu (human goods), na mapatano ya vikao yanayozalisha mikataba ya kijamii yanayozingatia kanuni ya wengi wasikilizwe (human convention). (Juan Carlos Riofrío Martínez-Villalba(2023:33-44)

Lakini bado, wanazuoni wanakubaliana kuwa kama itawezekana kufanya mchujo wa kiakili unaotuwezesha kupata kanuni za maadili kutokana na kanuni thabiti za maumbili ya binadamu, hiyo itakuwa ni njia bora zaidi, maana tutapata kanuni za maadili ya kudumu kwa njia hiyo.

Hili ni pendekezo kuhusu hoja ya kuzalisha haki asilia kutokana na sifa ziaozpatikana katika "muundo asilia wa kibinadamu." Tuone pendekezo hili kwa kina.

Muundo asilia wa binadamu kama chimbuko la haki

Hii ni hoja inayopendekeza kuvuna haki asilia kutokana na muundo asilia wa binadamu. Yaani "an argument for natural rights from natural human design". Hoja hii inao muundo ufuatao:
An argument for natural rights from natural human design:

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human flourishing. (Angus Brook, 2019)
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.
4. A moral duty to avoid morally wrong acts entails a right of others to be free from morally wrong acts, while a moral duty to pursue morally good acts entails a right of others to enjoy morally good acts
5. Thus we have a right to be free from morally wrong acts and a right to enjoy morally good acts.

However, the claim that, there are basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human flourishing, requires clarification.

The above argument is teleological. It defines the morally right in terms of the axiologically good. This axiology highlights a range of basic goods. According to Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi (2019:64-67), six points come into play in understanding these goods and the fundamental moral standard to which they give rise.

First, there are "states of affairs" that we almost all find attractive. If someone does not find these states of affairs attractive, we would judge that person deficient.

For example, to care nothing for the core constituents of one's life is a pathology. These states of affairs are basic goods.

Second, basic goods include knowledge, friendship, sexual union and the care of one's children, beauty, self-direction in choosing a path in life, harmony with divine forces, bodily integrity, play or leisure, and life itself the foundation of the basic goods. These basic goods are the familiar ends of daily activity.

We can also distinguish between reflexive and substantive basic goods. We realize reflexive basic goods in our choices and actions; friendship is an example. The substantive good of life, however, is independent of specific actions on our part.

Third, without these basic goods, we cannot flourish by fulfilling or actualizing our natural potentials. Indeed, without the good of life, we do not exist.

Thus, the basic goods are within us as the central and inter-related components of our well-being as persons and as communities.

Fourth, it is rational to pursue these goods and irrational to attack them. For example, if asked why one is doing such-and-such, it is rational to answer in terms of these goods. "I am acting to gain knowledge, or to help a friend, build a family, make something beautiful."

Perhaps one is using the wrong means to do so, but to pursue such an end is always rational. So, too, it is irrational to attack a basic good.

Such declarations as the following border on the senseless: "I am acting to gain false beliefs, or to hurt a friend, ruin a family, destroy a work of beauty."

Fifth, these goods are incommensurable. A basic good is incommensurable in that it does not have any common measure with another basic good such that the two goods can be rank ordered. It is a mistake to say that knowledge is of greater worth than friendship or, indeed, the reverse.

It is a mistake to say that self-determination is of greater worth than life or, indeed, the reverse.

Accordingly, we misunderstand the basic goods if we suppose that it is reasonable intentionally to attack or undermine a basic good to gain another.

Unlike instrumental and external goods, basic goods are internal to the person. One can put a price on a book, but one cannot buy the knowledge it might provide.

Knowledge is within the knower. One can buy someone's time, but one cannot buy a friend. Friendship is within the friends who share it.

One can buy sexual access, but to ask the price of authentic sexual union is to misunderstand its nature.

One can buy a beautiful object but not the appreciation of its beauty. Beauty is not simply within the beholder, but apart from its personal appropriation, it becomes simply a physical pattern.

Because basic goods are incommensurable, consequentialist arguments that the end justifies the means fail.

Thus, to answer the rhetorical question, "If the ends do not justify the means, then what does?" we should distinguish between external and internal means.

Regarding the former, only the end justifies the means. An external means serves to achieve an end and, once it does so, remains separate or at least distinct from that end.

A carpenter drills a nail into a wall and, having done so, returns the drill to a rack.

A physician uses a stethoscope to listen to a patient's heart and, having done so, replaces the instrument in a cabinet. A student tapes a poster on a wall. The tape is attached to the poster but remains distinct from it.

And an internal means helps bring about an end and, in doing so, becomes a part of it. A lie told to fabricate evidence becomes a part of the fabrication.

Violence to foster revolution becomes a part of a revolutionary structure. When terrorists win control, their terror is institutionalized.

Thus, regarding internal means, it is by no means clear that the end justifies the means. Such means are the ends in their coming to be.

Sixth, it is rational (a) to be open to all the basic goods and (b) to act together to realize them. Moral reasoning is neither the prisoner of psychological egoism nor limited to instrumental calculation. Reason is not the slave of the passions.

In exploring these six characteristics of basic goods, we have explored a natural law axiology.

It contrasts with a deontology that puts the right before the good; it blocks a maximizing consequentialism. Natural law looks to the basic goods as the ends of moral action that leads to the flourishing of the human person.

Finally, understanding the basic goods leads to an account of the common good, a pivotal aspect of natural law and its social ethics.

The common good is the whole range of material and social conditions that enables us to pursue the basic goods, together with the basic goods themselves.

The achievement of basic goods depends on both the material and the social environment. Knowledge depends on, among other things, the tools of communication.

It also depends on language acquisition and the transmission of culture. Jacques Maritain offers us a rich inventory of the material and social conditions for political society.

They include the collection of public commodities and services - the roads, ports, schools, etc., which the organization of common life presupposes; a sound fiscal condition of the state and its military power; the body of just laws, good customs and wise institutions, which provide the nation with its structure; the heritage of its great historical remembrances, its symbols and its glories, and its living traditions and cultural treasures.

These constituents of the common good need coordination, and their sum or sociological integration" is greater than a mere collection of parts. Given this integration, moreover, each person can participate in the common good.

These things all are, in a certain measure communicable and so revert to each member, helping him to perfect his life and liberty of person.

Hivyo basi, kwa sababu ya muundo asilia wa kibinadamu, ni hitimisho la kimantiki kuwa, haki asilia sio kitu kilichobuniwa na watu, bali ni stahiki tunazozaliwa nazo na zinazotuwezesha kunufaika na "matunda" ya hazina asilia zilizo ndani ya asili yetu.

Hata hivyo, kulingana na kitabu cha J. Caleb Clanton na Kraig Martin(2022:3-48), mchakato wa kuvuna "kanuni za maadili asilia" kutoka kwenye "kanuni za maumbile" unaweza kufuata njia moja kati ya njia kuu mbili.

Njia ya kwanza inaitwa "the Old Natural Law methodology" inapendekeza kuvuna "kanuni za maadili asilia" kutoka kwenye "kanuni za maumbile," moja kwa moja kwa kutumia mchujo wa kimantiki wenye hatua mbili, kwa sababu ya imani kuwa maadili na maumbile ni kama pande mbili za sarafu moja.

Njia hii inakumbana na pingamizi linadai kuwa, kwenye hoja sanifu, "dokezo linalotaja kanuni ya kimaumbile" haliwezi kuzaa "hitimisho linalotaja kanuni ya kimaadili," kwani, haiwezekani kuvuna machungwa kutoka kwenye mwembe.

Yaani, kwa mujibu wa kanuni za kuunda hoja sanifu, hitimisho linapaswa kuwa na taarifa ambazo zinapatikana kwenye madokezo yaliyolitangulia.

Ndio kusema kuwa, kama hitimisho linaongelea taarifa za kimaadili, lazima kuwepo na angalau dokezo moja lenye kubeba taarifa za kimaadili.

Kwa Kimombo pingamizi hili ni hoja inayoitwa, "No-Direct-Ought-From-Is-Argument," au "NDOFI Argument" kwa kifupi.

Njia ya pili kwa ajili ya kuchuja kanuni za maadili kutokana na kanuni za maumbile inaitwa "the New Natural Law Methodology."

Njia hii inapendekeza kuchuja "kanuni za maadili asilia" kutoka kwenye "kanuni za maumbile" kwa njia ya mzunguko unaoanzia kwenye tunu, badala ya kuanzia kwenye kanuni za maumbile.

Tunu hizo ni uhai, urazini wa kimatendo, mazoezi, afya, maarifa ya ukweli, ukamilifu wa mwili, utulivu wa mwili na roho, na orodha inaendelea.

Njia hii inasema kuwa tunu hizi zinagunduliwa bila ulazima wa kujua chochote kuhusu kanuni za maumbile zinazofundishwa katika masomo ya bayolojia, kemia, fizikia na kadhalika. Kwa mtu anayeamini katika misingi ya urazini timamu, pendekezo hili ni kikwazo.

Baada ya kusoma kitabu cha J. Caleb Clanton na Kraig Martin(2022:3-48), na marejeo aliyoyatumia, na kufananisha na maandiko ya Julius Nyerere, wanazuoni wa Tanzania tulihitimisha kuwa, tunapaswa kutumia njia zote mbili kuzailisha kanuni za maadili asilia kutokana na kanuni za maumbile.

Yaani, mchakato wetu ni mchujo wa kimantiki wenye hatua tatu zifuatazo: dekezo kuu (major premise) linatokana na "the Old Natural Law methodology" inatupatia , dokezo dogo (minor premise) linatokana na "the New Natural Law Methodology", na hatimaye, kutokana na madokezo yaya mawili, tunapata hitimisho linalotupa kanuni za maadili tunazozitaka, zikiwa na sura ya haki na majukumu.

Kama tukiongelea "the Tanzanian natural law Methodology," tunapata mchakato wa kimantiki ufuatao kwa ajili ya kuchuja kanuni za kimaadili kutoka kwenye kanuni za kimaumbile:

The process of deriving prescriptive norms from natural norms entails the following steps:

1. Identify essential attributes of human nature: Natural law posits universal principles governing human conduct, often tied to human nature, which includes intelligence, free will, natural inclinations which are instrumental in the pursuit of human flourishing.
2. Identify basic goods of human nature: Reason reveals fundamental goods, such as life, knowledge, rationality, sociability, and procreation, which must be simultaneously respected as a precondition for integral human flourishing.
3. Formulate prohibitive obligations: Natural law dictates that we must not harm these basic goods (e.g., do not kill, do not steal) and should promote them.
4. Shift to Rights: A right emerges as the flip side of a prohibitive obligations; if it's wrong to kill, I have a right to life; if it's wrong to steal, I have a right to property.
5. Universalize human rights norms through legislation: These rights are not granted by governments but are inherent to being human, making them universal, inalienable, and a standard against which positive (human-made) laws are formulated and judged.

We can now apply this procedure of deductively deriving natural law norms from each of the common natural inclinations, to the following set of natural inclinations and their inherent human goods to derive norms of behavior:

(1) Natural inclination to the good as opposed to an aversion to the evil; (2) Natural inclination to preserve life as opposed to an aversion to intentionally causing death of an innocent person; (3) Natural inclination to preserve health as opposed to an aversion to sickness; (4) Natural inclination to copulation as opposed to an aversion to pedication; (5) Natural inclination to marital sex as opposed to an aversion to non-marital sex; (6) Natural inclination to knowledge of truth as opposed to an aversion to ignorance; (7) Natural inclination to social life as opposed to an aversion to solitude; (8) Natural inclination to self-integration as opposed to an aversion to self-disintegration; (9) Natural inclination to ownership as opposed to an aversion to material poverty; (10) Natural inclination to technological prosperity as opposed to an aversion to technological poverty; (11) Natural inclination to personal self-determination as opposed to an aversion to subjugation; (12) Natural inclination to order as opposed to an aversion to chaos; (13) Natural inclination to peace as opposed to an aversion to violence; (14) Natural inclination to coherence as opposed to an aversion to incoherence; (15) Natural inclination to cultural richness as opposed to cultural primitivity; (16) Natural inclination to the common good as opposed to an aversion to institutional evil; and (17) Natural inclination to religious knowledge of truth as opposed to an aversion to religious ignorance.

From (1) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing the good and avoid the evil, we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties;

1. Descriptive premise: Every action that fulfils human nature is good, where, the term “good” merely describes “something that is oriented toward the realization of the inherent tendencies or potentialities of a human being”.
2. Prescriptive premise: Any action that is oriented toward the realization of the inherent tendencies or potentialities of a human being and it is not violative of any basic human good, then it ought to be pursued practically, and its opposite avoided.
3. Prescriptive conclusion: Therefore, action which is oriented toward the realization of the inherent tendencies or potentialities of a human being is good, where, the term “good” is normative since it refers to “something that fulfills the inherent tendencies or potentialities of a human being and that ought to be pursued practically, and its opposite avoided.”
4. Highlighting correlation between rights and duties: What we ought to do/avoid doing is a duty that entails a corresponding right to be enjoyed by others.
5. Highlighting natural rights from natural duties: Thus, we have a natural right to enjoy morally good acts or avoid morally bad acts.

In other words, the natural law theory of human rights and duties proposes an argument, which deductively derives moral norms from natural facts through the above shown three-step argument, which can be paraphrased as follows:

1. The essential nature of a given class of entities called humans tells the entities to pursue a certain set of goods and avoid a corresponding set of bads, where, this is a is a descriptive premise stating "what is naturally pursued" ;
2. If the essential nature of a given class of entities called humans tells the entities to pursue a certain set of goods and such a pursuit is not violative of any basic human good, then they ought to conduct themselves in a manner that allows them to pursue those goods and avoid a corresponding set of bads, where, this is a prescriptive premise stating "what ought to be pursued";
3. Thus, entities in a given class called humans ought to to conduct themselves in a manner that allows them to flourish by pursuing a certain set of goods and avoid a corresponding set of bads, where, this is a deductive normative conclusion based on one descriptive premise and one prescriptive premise.
4. Humans who ought to naturally do and avoid certain acts are duty-bearers responsible for performing natural duties which correspond to natural rights to be enjoyed by other fellow humans, the latter being called right-holders.
5. Thus, humans have a natural right to perform some acts which allow them to flourish by pursuing a certain set of goods and avoiding a corresponding set of bads.

From (2) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing preserve life and avoid intentionally causing death of an innocent person ; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.
4. Acts of abortion, murder, authanasia, and extrajudicial killings, intentionally cause death of innocent persons.
5. Thus, we have a duty to avoid abortion, murder, authanasia, and extrajudicial killings.
6. A duty to avoid abortion, murder, authanasia, and extrajudicial killings entails the conclusion that, innocent persons have a right to be free from abortion, murder, authanasia, and extrajudicial killings.
7. Thus, innocent persons have a right to be free from abortion, murder, authanasia, and extrajudicial killings.

From (3) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing the preservation of the basic good of health and avoid causing sickness; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.
4. Acts of depriving medical care, food, sleep, and drinking water, are gateways to sickness and poor health.
5. Thus, we have a duty to avoid depriving others of medical care, food, sleep, and drinking water.
6. The duty to avoid depriving others of medical care, food, sleep, and drinking water entails the right to medical care, food, sleep, and drinking water.
7. Thus, others have a right to medical care, food, sleep, and drinking water.

From (4) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing copulation and avoiding pedication; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.
4. Acts of pedication, that is anal sexual acts, both homo-affective anal sex and hetero-affective anal sex, are gateways to anal bodily disintegrity, in so far as anal disfunction leading to anal incontinence, hence an impaired digestive system, is concerned.
5. Thus, we have a duty to avoid pedication by pursuing copulation so as to preserve anal bodily integrity, in so far as anal function of preventing incontinence, hence facilitating a digestive system intengrity, is concerned.
6. The duty to avoid pedication by pursuing copulation entails the right to be free from pedication and the right to pursue copulation.
7. Thus, we have a right to be free from pedication and the right to pursue copulation, that is, freedom from anal sexual acts, namely, both homo-affective anal sex and hetero-affective anal sex.

From (5) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing mariral sex and avoiding non-marital sex; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong. That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.
4. Non-marital sexual acts such as adultery and fornication are contrary to human flourishing through sexual intercourse since it promotes human objectification and existential body-self fragmentation.
5. Therefore, non-marital sex is morally wrong.
6. Moral obligations entail moral rights.
7. Thus, we have a right to be free from non-marital sex.

From (6) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing knowledge of truth and avoiding ignorance; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

From (7) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing social life and avoiding solitude; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.
4. An individual needs his body and life to fulfill the duties of social life through daily corporeal functions such as sports, farming, driving a car, writing a letter, and attending sick people. .
5. Thus, we have a duty to promote sociability by cultivating sociable relations with others and enabling each other to act as useful members of society by avoiding amputation of the bodies of each others or killing others without their consent.
6. The duty to promote sociability entails the right to be free from unwarranted bodily amputation and killing by others without one's consent.
7. Thus, we have a right to be free from bodily amputation and killing by others without one's consent.

From (8) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing self-integration aand avoiding self-disintegration; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

From (9) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing ownership and avoiding material poverty; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

From (10) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing technological prosperity and avoiding technological poverty; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

From (11) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing personal self-determination and avoiding subjugation; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

From (12) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing order and avoiding chaos; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

From (13) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing consentual peace and avoiding coercive peace; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.
4. Consensual peace, as opposed coercive peace, is the tranquility of non-coercive order arising from intentional respect, protection, fulfillment and facilitation of human rights, based on a predefined standard of justice, in such a way that all members of society are subjects of social, economic and political benefits and burdens based on a free and informed consent.
5. This, we have a duty to avoid coercive peace
6. The duty to avoid coercive peace entails the right to be free from coercive peace.
7. Thus, we have a right to be free from coercive peace which entails the right to consensual peace.

From (14) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing coherence and avoiding incoherence; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

From (15) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing cultural richness as opposed to cultural primitivity; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

From (16) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing the common good and avoiding institutional evil; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

And from (17) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing religious knowledge of truth and avoiding religious ignorance; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

VI. MATOKEO YA UTAFITI

Majibu kwa Swali la (1): Ni kweli kwamba viongozi wa TEC kwamba hawajui maana ya sheria wala umuhimu wake katika kuendesha nchi yenye dini nyingi?

Jibu: Sio kweli kwamba viongozi wa TEC kwamba hawajui maana ya sheria wala umuhimu wake katika kuendesha nchi yenye dini nyingi? Historia ya mchango wa Kanisa Katoliki katika mvuvumko wa sheria za dunia hii iko bayana.

Kanisa Katoliki linaamini kwamba lilianzishwa na Yesu Kristo mwenyewe, ambaye aliwapa mitume wake, hasa Petro, mamlaka ya kuongoza kanisa.

Petro anachukuliwa kuwa papa wa kwanza, na mamlaka yake ilipitishwa kwa warithi wake. Kanisa lilianza rasmi siku ya Pentekoste ya kwanza baada ya kifo cha Yesu, ambapo mitume walipokea Roho Mtakatifu na kuanza kuhubiri Injili.

Andiko linalotumika kuhalalisha Petro kuwa papa wa kwanza ni Mathayo 16:15-19. Hivyo, Kanisa Katoliki linaamini kwamba Petro alikuwa kiongozi wa mitume na kwamba mamlaka yake ilipitishwa kwa warithi wake, ambao ni mapapa.

Tangu wakati huo, Kanisa Katoliki hufanya kazi kama mtendaji wa kipekee, mwenye ushawishi, na asiye wa serikali katika mfumo wa kisheria wa kimataifa hasa kupitia Jimbo Kuu la Roma ambalo lina utu wa kisheria unaotambulika kimataifa.

Kama chombo huru, Jimbo Kuu la Roma hufanya kazi kama mamlaka ya maadili na mtendaji wa kidiplomasia anayeshiriki katika kuunda sheria za kimataifa na majadiliano ya haki za binadamu.

Katika muktadha wa mfumo wa sheria asilia za kidunia, Kanisa Katoliki hufanya kazi kama mlezi wa maadili, mwananadharia wa msingi, na sauti ya ukosoaji inayotetea uwepo wa ukweli halisi wa maadili unaopatikana kwa njia ya akili ya kibinadamu.

Ingawa mifumo ya kidunia mara nyingi huweka sheria kulingana na makubaliano ya watu binafsi au mikataba ya kijamii, Kanisa Katoliki linasisitiza kwamba sheria asilia ni utaratibu ambao haukuundwa na watu ambao hutumika kama kizio muhimu cha sheria zilizotungwa na binadamu, hasa kuhusu ulinzi wa haki za binadamu, maisha, na familia. Kanisa linatekeleza majukumu haya kwa njia kadhaa, zikiwemo:

Mpendekezaji wa Ukweli wa Maadili Huru Ulimwenguni: Kanisa linafundisha kwamba sheria ya asili "imeandikwa mioyoni mwa wanadamu" na Mungu na inaeleweka kwa akili ya kibinadamu, na sio kwa imani tu.

Katika jamii ya kidunia, Kanisa linatumia kanuni hii kusema kwamba ukweli fulani wa maadili—kama vile kukataza mauaji, wizi, au ulinzi wa familia—si mafundisho ya kidini tu bali ni ukweli wa kimantiki, wa ulimwengu wote unaowahusu watu wote, bila kujali imani.

Wakala wa "Akili ya Umma": Kanisa linasema kwamba mafundisho yake ya kijamii yanategemea akili ya binadamu inayoangaziwa na imani, na hivyo kuifanya sauti yake iwe muhimu katika jamii za kidunia, zenye wingi wa mitazamo ya kifalsafa, na za kidemokrasia.

Kanisa linajaribu kuhemea fikra zinazounga mkono sheria ya asili kutoka kwa watu wengine, likilenga kutumia njia hiyo kuishawishi jamii ya kidunia kwamba desturi fulani zinazoharibu "manufaa ya wote" zinapaswa kuepukwa.

Msingi wa Kihistoria na Kiakili: Kanisa linadumisha mbinu ya sheria ya asili ya "jadi", iliyojikita katika mafundisho ya Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), ambayo inapingana na nadharia za kisasa za sheria ya asili ya "kidunia" ambazo mara nyingi hupuuza dhana ya "mpangilio ulioumbwa".

Kanisa linashikilia kwamba sheria ya asili ni "ushiriki katika sheria ya milele" iliyoandikwa katika akili ya Mungu.

Kwa kuhifadhi mapokeo haya, Kanisa hufanya kazi kama daraja kati ya mawazo ya kisheria ya kimapokeo na ya kisasa, hasa kupitia taasisi kama vile Akademia za Kipapa.

Kwa hiyo, Kanisa Katoliki ambaye ni Mwalimu Mkuu wa sheria hapa duniani, haliwezi kuwa taasisi isiyojua maana wala umuhimu wa sheria, kama Rais Samia anavyotaka kuuaminisha umma.

Majibu kwa Swali la (2): Kama ukuta wa kikatiba inaopaswa kutenganisha "mambo ya kidini" na "mambo ya kisiasa", ni kama "chekecheo" ambalo linapaswa kutusaidia kutambua haki za taasisi za kidini dhidi ya taasisi za kisiasa ni zipi?

Jibu: Haki za taasisi za kidini dhidi ya taasisi za serikali ni hizi hapa:

• Haki ya kufundisha juu ya maarifa ya vitu asilia (existential beliefs), yaani imani kuhusu vitu vilivyopo na visivyokuwepo ulimwenguni, ikiwa vitu hivyo vinaweza kuonekana na kugusika.
• Haki ya kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya tunu asilia (evaluative beliefs), ikiwa tunu hizo zinaweza kugunduliwa bila ulazima wa kuangalia kwenye misahafu, kama vile heshima ya kiutu, uhai, afya, maarifa, ukweli, urazini, urafiki, utajiri, uhuru na ustawi.
• Na haki ya kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya maadili asilia (normative beliefs), ikiwa maadili hayo yanaweza kugunduliwa bila ulazima wa kuangalia kwenye misahafu, kama vile mfumo wa maadili asillia na haki za binadamu zilizomo kwenye Tangazo la Dunia Kuhusu Haki za Binadamu.
• Haki ya kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya vitu asilia (existential beliefs), yaani imani kuhusu vitu vilivyopo na visivyokuwepo ulimwenguni, hata kama uwepo wa vitu hivyo hauwezi kutambuliwa kwa njia ya kufikiri, kuona na kugusa, bali kwa kuanfalia kwenye misahafu au mapokeo ya kisekta, mfano mizimu, majini, malaika, mbingu, ahera, kuzimu, miungu na Mungu.
• Haki ya kufundisha kuhusu maarida ya tunu asilia (evaluative beliefs), hata kama ni lazima kuzigundua tunu hizo kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu, mfano ukiwa ni wokovu, uzima wa milele, ibada, sala, na upendo.
• Na haki ya kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya maadili asilia (normative beliefs), hata kama ni lazima kugundua maadili hayo kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu, mfano ukiwa ni taratibu za ibada, mavazi, na mapishi ya vyakula.

Haki hizi za kidini zinaambatana na majukumu ya taasisi za kidini yafuatayo:

• Jukumu la kidini la kujizuia kuitaka serikali kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya vitu asilia (existential beliefs), yaani imani kuhusu vitu vilivyopo na visivyokuwepo ulimwenguni, pale ambapo uwepo wa vitu hivyo hauwezi kutambuliwa kwa njia ya kufikiri, kuona na kugusa, bali kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu au mapokeo ya kisekta.
• Jukumu la kidini la kujizuia kuitaka serikali kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya tunu asilia (evaluative beliefs), pale ambapo ni lazima kuzigundua tunu hizo kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu, na sio vinginevyo.
• Na Jukumu la kidini la kujizuia kuitaka serikali kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya maadili asilia (normative beliefs), pale ambapo ni lazima kugundua maadili hayo kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu, na sio vinginevyo.

Majibu kwa Swali la (3): Kama ukuta wa kikatiba inaopaswa kutenganisha "mambo ya kidini" na "mambo ya kisiasa", ni kama "chekecheo" ambalo linapaswa kutusaidia kutambua haki za taasisi za kisiasa dhidi ya taasisi za kidini ni zipi?

Jibu: Haki za taasisi za kisiasa dhidi ya taasisi za kidini ni hizi hapa:

• Haki ya serikali kutolazimishwa na taasisi za kidini kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya vitu asilia (existential beliefs), yaani imani kuhusu vitu vilivyopo na visivyokuwepo ulimwenguni, pale ambapo uwepo wa vitu hivyo hauwezi kutambuliwa kwa njia ya kufikiri, kuona na kugusa, bali kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu au mapokeo ya kisekta.
• Haki ya serikali kutolazimishwa na taasisi za kidini kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya tunu asilia (evaluative beliefs) pale ambapo ni lazima kuzigundua tunu hizo kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu, na sio vinginevyo.
• Na haki ya serikali kutolazimishwa na taasisi za kidini kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya maadili asilia (normative beliefs) pale ambapo ni lazima kugundua maadili hayo kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu, na sio vinginevyo.

Hizi haki za kisiasa zinakwenda na majukumu ya kisiasa yafuatayo:

• Jukumu la kisiasa la kujizuia kuminya haki ya kidini ya kufundisha kuhusu imaarifa ya vitu asilia (existential beliefs), yaani imani kuhusu vitu vilivyopo na visivyokuwepo ulimwenguni, hata kama uwepo wa vitu hivyo lazima ugunfuliwe kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu, kwa sababu haviwezi kugunduliwa kwa kuona wala kugusa.
• Jukumu la kisiasa la kujizuia kuminya haki ya kidini ya kufundisha kuhusu maadili ya tunu asilia (evaluative beliefs) hata kama tunu hizo ni lazima zigunduliwe kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu.
• Jukumu la kisiasa la kujizuia kuminya haki ya kidini ya kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya maadili asilia (normative beliefs)hata kama maadili hayo ni lazima yagunduliwe kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu.

Majibu kwa Swali la (4): Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia ni yapi na yalibeba maudhui gani?

Jibu: Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia yalibeba maudhui yanayotokana na mfumo wa amri kumi za Mungu kama ukitumika pamoja na mfumo wa maadili asilia kama ifuatavyo:

Wakristo wapatao bilioni 2.5 duniani kote, sawa na 37% ya watu wote duniani, wanaunganishwa na mafundisho ya kidini ("religious doctrine") yanayoweza kufupishwa katika matamko matatu bila kubaki, kama ifuatavyo:

1. Maarifa kuhusu ukweli juu ya Mungu, Mazingira na Watu na uhusiano kati ya pande hizi tatu, kama yalivyofupishwa kwenye Kanuni za Imani kama vile Kanuni ya Imani ya Mitume, Kanuni ya Imani ya Athanazi, Kanuni ya Imani ya Nikea, na kadhalika (Credenda).
2. Malengo yanayopaswa kuombewa kwa Mungu, katika matumaini, ili mahusiano kati ya Mungu, Mazingira na Watu yaimarike, kama yalivyofupishwa kwenye Sala ya Baba Yetu (Speranda).
3. Na, majukumu yanayopaswa kutekelezwa ili kuonyesha upendo kwa vitendo, kwa ajili ya kudumisha mahusiano mema kati ya Mungu, Mazingira na Watu, kama yalivyofupishwa kwenye Amri Kumi za Mungu (Agenda).

Hivyo, Katekisimu zote za Ukristo zinaongelea na kufafanua mambo haya matatu, kwa kutumia lugha tofauti na mpangilio tofauti.

Ajenda ya Taasisi za dini ya Ukristo, likiwemo Kanisa Katoliki, yaani Amri Kumi za Mungu wa Biblia, inavyo vipengele vifuatavyo:

1. Mwabudu Mungu mmoja aliyeumba Ulimwengu na anayepigania heshima ya utu wa kila binadamu (Kutoka 20:2-8)
2. Fanya kazi kwa siku sita za wiki kwa kutumia mbinu za sayansi na tekinolojia mamboleo (Kutoka 20:9)
3. Pumzika kazi zote siku ya saba (Kutoka 20:10-11)
4. Waheshimu wazazi wako walioasisi familia yako (Kutoka 20:12)
5. Usiue mtu yeyote asiye na hatia wala kuua jina lake zuri kwa kumpaka matope (Kutoka 20:13)
6. Usizini na mke wa jirani yako yeyote, mahali popote na wakati wowote (Kutoka 20:14)
7. Usiibe mali wala kuiba mtu kwa kumteka na kumpoteza (Kutoka 20:15)
8. Usimdanganye mtu yeyote, mahali popote, wakati wowote, na kwa njia yoyote (Kutoka 20:16)
9. Usitamani mke wala kitu chochore cha jirani yako yeyote, mahali popote na wakati wowote (Kutoka 20:17)
10. Usitende uovu kama mbinu ya kufanikisha lengo jema (Kutoka 20:2-18)

Kiteolojia, hizi amri kumi zinataja majukumu ya Mkristo ambayo yanaweza kufupishwa katika majukumu makuu matatu (Mathayo 22:36-40).Yaani:

• Jukumu la Kumpenda Mungu, kwa maana kwamba Mungu anayo haki ya kupendwa;
• Jukumu la Kumpenda jirani, kwa maana kwamba kila jirani anayo haki ya kupendwa, ambayo ni haki iliyo kikonyo cha haki zote baki; na
• Jukumu la kuyapenda mazingira yaliyo rafiki kwa ustawi wa kila mtu na jirani yake; kwa maana kwamba mazingira yanayo haki ya kutunzwa.

Kumpenda mtu ni kufanya kitendo chochote kinachomsogeza karibu na mema ya kiutu au kumsukuma mbali na mabaya ya kiutu, na hivyo, kukuza na kuhami tunu za kiutu.

Majibu kwa Swali la (5): Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kweli yanavuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, kama Rais Samia alivyodokeza?

Jibu: Mfumo wa maadili ya kimisahafu, kwa sehemu kubwa, unakubaliana na mfumo wa maadili asilia, wenye kuongozwa na msukumo wa tamaa asilia ya kufukuzia mema na kukwela maovu.

Yaani, kuna “mlaliano,” yaani “intersection,” kati ya mfumo wa maadili asilia yanayotambuliwa na katiba ya nchi na mfumo wa maadili ya kimisahafu.

Kwa sehemu kubwa, “mlaliano” huo ndio unaunda maudhui ya matamko yote ya TEC. Hivyo, matamko haya yako ndani ya uzio wa mamlaka ya TEC na hayaruki ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa.

Hivyo malalamiko ya Rais Samia, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga, Elia Phaustine Kabote, na Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura ni malalamiko hewa.

Majibu kwa Swali la (6): Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kweli yanavuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaotenganisha mambo ya kidini yanayowahusu TEC na mambo ya kidini yanayozihusu taasisi baki za kidini, kama Rais Samia alivyodai?

Jibu: Kuna “mlaliano,” yaani “intersection,” kati ya mfumo wa maadili asilia yanayotambuliwa na katiba ya nchi na mifumo ya maadili ya kimisahafu inayotumiwa na dini mbalimbali.

Yaani, mfumo wa maadili asilia ni kigawe kidogo cha shirika kati ya dini na dini, madhehebu na madhehebu.

Ndio kusema kuwa, mfumo wa maadili asilia ni kama uzi unaounganisha shanga za tasbihi, ambapo kila punje inawakilisha madhehebu fulani ya kidini.

Kwa kuwa mfumo wa maadili asilia ndio unaunda kiini cha maudhui ya matamko yote ya TEC, matamko hayo hayapokonyi haki za kidini za dini baki. Badala yake yanaziimarisha na kuziunganisha.

Kwa ujumla, matamko ya TEC yako ndani ya uzio wa mamlaka ya TEC na hayaruki ukuta unaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa.

Hii maana yake ni kwamba, malalamiko ya Rais Samia, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga, Elia Phaustine Kabote, na Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura ni malalamiko hewa.

Majibu kwa Swali la (7): Je, kuna muumini yeyote wa Kanisa Katoliki ambaye anapaswa kukerwa na Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kiasi kwamba anastahili kuwasilisha malalamiko rasmi dhidi ya TEC mbele ya Balozi wa Papa, kama wanavyodai kina Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura?

Jibu: Kwa kuwa, matamko ya TEC yako ndani ya uzio wa mamlaka ya TEC na hayaruki ukuta unaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, hakuna muumini yeyote wa Kanisa Katoliki ambaye anapaswa kukerwa na Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia.

Majibu kwa Swali la (8): Ni kweli kwamba vijana waliodai kuandika barua ya malalamiko dhidi ya Padre Kitima kwenda kwa Papa ni "malofa" kwa maana ya “waasi waliosaliti sauti ya dhamiri zao na kugeuka bendera fuata upepo"?

Jibu: Ndio, ni "malofa" kwa maana ya “waasi waliosaliti sauti ya dhamiri zao na kugeuka bendera fuata upepo". Ni hivyo kwa kuwa, matamko ya TEC yako ndani ya uzio wa mamlaka ya TEC na hayaruki ukuta unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa. Na kwa sababu hii hakuna Mkristo anayesikiliza sauti ya dhamiri yake anapaswa kukerwa na Matamko hayo nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia.

Kwa hakika, napendekeza kwamba, hata watu wanaowatetea na watu waliowatuma ni maadui wa "imani ya Kikristo".

Na kuhusu tamko kwamba wahusika ni "malofa," tuanzie kwenye maana ta neno "lofa." Kwa mujibu wa Baba wa Taifa, Julius Nyerere, "lofa" ni mtu mzururaji, mtu asiye na kazi maalum, ba hivyo mtu anayejikomba kwa watu ili kupata mkate wake wa kila siku.

Mpaka sasa watuhumiwa hawajakanusha tuhuma dhidi yao kwa kusema wanafanya kazi gani na wapi. Kwa hiyo, tuhuma hii itanedelea kusimama mpaka watakapoleta ushahidi wa kukanusha.

Majibu kwa Swali la (9): Na, Je, ni nafuu gani ambayo kila pande katika mzozo huu, yaani serikali, Kanisa Katoliki na umma mpana, unastahili?

Jibu: Kwa upande wa serikali, Rais Samia, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga, Elia Phaustine Kabote, na Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura wanastahili kuliomba msamaha Kanisa Katoliki.

Kwa upande wa Kanisa katoliki, linawajibika kuwasamehe Rais Samia, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga, Elia Phaustine Kabote, na Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura, kwa kuwa hawajui walitendalo.

Lakini Kanisa katoliki lisiishie hapo. Linapaswa kukusanya "matamko manane ya TEC" aliyoyaongelea Rais Samia, kuyachapisha kama kitabu kimoja, na kuwasambazia waumini ili kuweka kumbukumbu sawa.

Kwa upande wa Bunge, tunapaswa kutunga sheria ya Bunge ili kunyoosha mambo na kuufanya ukweli wote juu ya mahusiano kati ya dini na dola udhihirike kisheria, badala ya kusinga mbele kwa kubahatisha kama tunavyofanya sasa hivi.

Na kwa upande wa AZAKI, tunapaswa kuanzisha elimu ya uraia (civic education) kwa ajili ya kufundisha watanzania kuhusu misingi ya maadili asilia, ambayo ndio kigawe kidogo cha shirika kati ya dini zote, kila dini ikiwa na upekee wake.

VII. HITIMISHO NA MAPENDEKEZO

Tamko hili limeandaliwa kwa ajili ya kujibu swali: Matamko Gani ya TEC yanayodaiwa kuvuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, na kama kweli yalivuka ukuta huo ni kwa kiasi gani yalivuka ukuta huo?

Baada ya utafiti wa kina, natoa jawabu kamilifu lenye kujibu swali hili kwa kuonyesha mambo matatu makuu.

Mosi, ingawa serikali ya jamhuri inayofuata mfumo wa haki na majukumu asilia lazima ifanye kazi bila kuegemea upande wowote wa kidini, na hivyo kuheshimu ukuta unaotenganisha dini na serikali, bado ukweli ufuatao unasimama:

1. Kwamba, waumini binafsi wakiongozwa na "Seti Kuu ya Sheria Zinazoratibu Malimwengu" au sheria ya maadili asilia inayotokana na sheria kuu tajwa, bado wako huru kuleta mafundishio ya imani zao kuhusu maasili asilia, kama yanavyofundishwa na viongozi wao wa kidini, kwenye uwanja wa siasa na kushawishi utungaji wa sera za serikali unaozingatia mafundisho haya;
2. Kwamba, viongozi wa kidini, huku wakiwa wanatekeleza wajibu wao wa kimaadili na kikatiba wa kutetea haki za asilia za wafuasi wao, kama wanavyozisoma kutoka kwenye "Seti Kuu ya Sheria Zinazoratibu Malimwengu" au sheria ya maadili asilia inayotokana na sheria kuu tajwa, wanalazimika kukosoa moja kwa moja sera za serikali zinazokiuka haki asilia za waumini wao na raia baki wanaoweza kuwa waumini wao katika siku za usoni;
3. Na kwamba, serikali, huku ikitekeleza wajibu wake wa kikatiba wa kutetea haki za asili za raia, huku ikiwa inazisoma kutoka kkwenye katiba ya nchi, inawajibika kukosoa moja kwa moja sera za kidini zinazokiuka haki hizo.

Pili, ni kweli kwamba, kupitia utekelezaji wa sera za utekaji, utesaji, mauaji ya raia, na uporaji wa rasilimali za Taifa, serikali imevunja haki asilia za raia; na hivyo kuwapa sababu viongozi wa dini, wakimwemo viongozi wa Kanisa Katoliki, kukosoa na kupinga sera hizo, kwa sababu ni haramu kwa mujibu wa sheria ya maadili asilia, inayotambuliwa kikatiba, na wanayopaswa kuitetea kwa mujibu wa mamlaka yao kama viongozi wa dini. Hivyo, tofauti na madai ya Rais Samia, matamko ya viongozi wa Kanisa Katoliki hayajavuka ukuta wa kikatiba na kisheria unaotenganisha mambo ya dini na mambo ya siasa.

Na tatu, ni hitimisho kwamba, majibu ya serikali kwa viongozi wa dini, wakimwemo viongozi wa Kanisa Katoliki, wanaokosoa sera za serikali zinazokiuka sheria ya maadili asilia, na hivyo kuvunja katiba ya nchi, ni majibu yanayolwepa hoja ya msingi, na kuongelea mambo yaliyo nje ya mjadala.

Hatimaye napendkeza kuwa, serikali inapaswa kuukubali ukweli unaotokana na utafiti hii na kujisahihisha, maana "Ukweli utatuweka huru" (Yohana 8:32).

VIII. MAREJEO MUHIMU

1. Angus Brook (2019), The Metaphysical Foundations of the Natural Law tradition (Presentation Paper) --Attached
2. Anver Emon, Matthew Levering na David Novak (2014), Natural Law: A Jewish, Christian and Islamic Trialogue (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press).
3. J. Caleb Clanton and Kraig Martin (2022), Nature and Command: On the Metaphysical Foundations of Morality (Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press),
4. JMT, Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania (1977), available onlie at National Audit Office website.
5. John Finnis (2011), Natural Law and Natural Rights (New York: Oxford University Press Inc)--Attached
6. John Stuart Mackenzie (2004), A Manual of Ethics (Kessinger Publishing).
7. Juan Carlos Riofrío Martínez-Villalba(2023), How to Deduce Human Rights From Natural Law and Other Disciplines, Ius Humani, 12.II:27-52, at 33-44 --Attached
8. Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi(2019), (Eds.), Metaphysics of Human Rights 1948-2018: On the Occasion of the 70th Anniversary of the UDHR (Delaware, USA: Vernon Art and Science)
9. Manuel G. Velasquez (2014:96-111), 7th Edition, Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases (London, UK: Pearson Education Ltd) --Attached
10. Matt Weisfeld(2008), The Object-Oriented Thought Process (Pearson Education)
11. Mellisa Moschella (2025), Ethics, politics and natural law principles for human flourishing (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press)--Attached
12. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part" (Prima Secundae), Question 90, Articles. 1 and 3.
13. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra Gentiles, Book 3, Chapter 114.
14. URT, Employment and Labour Relations Act No. 6 of 2004 (Chapter 366, RE 2023)
15. URT, Penal Code, Chapter 16 RE 2023
16. URT, Political Parties Act, Chapter 258, RE 2023
17. URT, Societies Act, Chapter 337 RE 2023.
18. Wayne Harry Lott(2016), Human Participation in the Eternal Law through the Natural Law in the Thought of Thomas Aquinas and Bernard Lonergan: Transpositions from a Classical to a Modern Mindset. A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Regis College and the Theology Department of the Toronto School of Theology In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael’s College--Attached
19. William S. Brewbaker III (2006), Thomas Aquinas and the Metaphysics of Law, Alabama Law Review, 58:575ff.
20. William S. Brewbaker III, What Is Christian Legal Thought, 2 J. Christian Legal Thought 5 (2012).Available at: What Is Christian Legal Thought

View attachment 3523155
Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura akitetea (1) kauli za Rais Samia dhidi ya matamko ya TEC, (2) barua ya mshtaka hewa dhidi ya Padre Kitima na (3) barua ya uzushi dhidi ya Askofu Riwaichi. Lwezaura amejitambulisha kwa waandishi wa habari kuwa ni mseminari aliyefika seminari kuu lakini akaukosa upadre siku chache kabla ya upadirisho. Hivyo, Lwezaura ni mtaalam wa falsafa, teolojia na masomo mengine ya elimu dunia kama vile homilia. Tamko lifuatalo limeandaliwa kwa kuzingatia mambo haya yote.

SAMIA NA UKUTA UNAOTENGANISHA MAMBO YA DINI NA MAMBO YA SIASA: MATAMKO GANI YA VIONGOZI WA TEC YALIVUNJA KATIBA NA SHERIA ZA TANZANIA?
​

I. USULI

Tamko hili limeandaliwa kwa ajili ya kujibu swali lifuatalo: Matamko Gani ya TEC yanayodaiwa kuvuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, na kama kweli yalivuka ukuta huo ni kwa kiasi gani yalivuka ukuta huo?

Baada ya utafiti wa kina, natoa jawabu kamilifu lenye kujibu swali hili kwa kuonyesha mambo matatu makuu.

Mosi, ingawa serikali ya jamhuri inayofuata mfumo wa haki na majukumu asilia inapaswa kufanya kazi bila kuegemea upande wowote wa kidini, na hivyo kuheshimu ukuta unaotenganisha dini na serikali, bado ukweli ufuatao unasimama:

1. Kwamba, waumini binafsi wakiongozwa na "Seti Kuu ya Sheria Zinazoratibu Malimwengu" au sheria ya maadili asilia inayotokana na sheria kuu tajwa, bado wako huru kuleta mafundishio ya imani zao kuhusu maasili asilia, kama yanavyofundishwa na viongozi wao wa kidini, kwenye uwanja wa siasa na kushawishi utungaji wa sera za serikali unaozingatia mafundisho haya;
2. Kwamba, viongozi wa kidini, huku wakiwa wanatekeleza wajibu wao wa kimaadili na kikatiba wa kutetea haki za asilia za wafuasi wao, kama wanavyozisoma kutoka kwenye "Seti Kuu ya Sheria Zinazoratibu Malimwengu" au sheria ya maadili asilia inayotokana na sheria kuu tajwa, wanalazimika kukosoa moja kwa moja sera za serikali zinazokiuka haki asilia za waumini wao na raia baki wanaoweza kuwa waumini wao katika siku za usoni;
3. Na kwamba, serikali, huku ikitekeleza wajibu wake wa kikatiba wa kutetea haki za asili za raia, huku ikiwa inazisoma kutoka kkwenye katiba ya nchi, inawajibika kukosoa moja kwa moja sera za kidini zinazokiuka haki hizo.

Pili, ni kweli kwamba, kupitia utekelezaji wa sera za utekaji, utesaji, mauaji ya raia, na uporaji wa rasilimali za Taifa, serikali imevunja haki asilia za raia; na hivyo kuwapa sababu viongozi wa dini, wakimwemo viongozi wa Kanisa Katoliki, kukosoa na kupinga sera hizo, kwa sababu ni haramu kwa mujibu wa sheria ya maadili asilia, inayotambuliwa kikatiba, na wanayopaswa kuitetea kwa mujibu wa mamlaka yao kama viongozi wa dini.

Hivyo, tofauti na madai ya Rais Samia, matamko ya viongozi wa Kanisa Katoliki hayajavuka ukuta wa kikatiba na kisheria unaotenganisha mambo ya dini na mambo ya siasa.

Na tatu, ni hitimisho kwamba, majibu ya serikali kwa viongozi wa dini, wakimwemo viongozi wa Kanisa Katoliki, wanaokosoa sera za serikali zinazokiuka sheria ya maadili asilia, na hivyo kuvunja katiba ya nchi, ni majibu yanayokwepa hoja ya msingi, na kuongelea mambo yaliyo nje ya mjadala. Serikali inapaswa kujisahihisha na kurudi kwenye barabara ya kikatiba.

Kwa ajili ya kutetea mtazamo huu, tamko hili limegawanyika kwenye sehemu zifuatazo:

1. Usuli
2. Utangulizi
3. Masuala yanayobishaniwa kati ya serikali na kanisa katoliki
4. Utaratibu uliotumika kufanya utafiti
5. Misingi ya jurisprudensi, katiba, sheria na falsafa ya haki na majukumu
6. Matokeo ya utafiti
7. Hitimisho na mapendekezo
8. Marejeo muhimu

II. UTANGULIZI

Tangu mwezi Aprili mwaka 2025, kuna vita ya mawazo, maneno na vitendo inayoendelea kati ya serikali na Kanisa Katoliki, na ambayo napendekeza kuifupisha kwa kutumia mtiririko wa tarehe za matukio muhimu kama ifuatavyo:

1. Tarehe 30 Aprili 2025, saa 4 usiku, Padri Charles Kitima alijeruhiwa na watu wasiojulikana akiwa ndani ya eneo la Makao Makuu ya TEC, Kurasini, Dar es Salaam, ambako pia ndipo yalipo makazi yake rasmi.
2. Tarehe 02 Desemba 2025, Rais Samia akiwa anaongea na wazee wa Dar es Salaam, alidai kwamba, kupitia matamko nane yaliyotolewa na TEC tangu 2021, Kanisa Katoliki linavuka ukuta wa kikatiba na kisheria unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa nchini Tanzania. Rais Samia anaonekana kuwatuhumu viongozi wa TEC kwamba hawajui maana ya sheria dunia wala umuhimu wake katika kuendesha nchi yenye dini nyingi.
3. Tarehe 22 Disemba 2025 watu wawili, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga na Elia Phaustine Kabote, waliojitambulisha kuwa ni waumini wa Kanisa Katoliki, walidai kuwasilisha barua ya malalamiko dhidi ya Padri Charles Kitima kwa Balozi wa Papa nchini Tanzania, wakiwa wanadai kwamba Padri Kitima, ambaye pia ni Katibu Mkuu wa TEC, anavuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, kwa maana kwamba, anafanya kazi kama mshauri wa kisiasa wa CHADEMA kuhusu umuhimu na ulazima wa siasa zinazozingatia tunu na maadili ya kiutu.
4. Tarehe 25 Desemba 2025, akitoa homilia ya Krismasi, Askofu Mkuu wa Jimbo Kuu Katoliki la Dar es Salaam, Jude Thaddeus Ruwaichi, alisema kwamba vijana walioandika Barua ya kumshitaki Padre Kitima ni "wasaliti wa imani ya Kikristo" inayokataza mbinu haramu kutumika Kwa ajili ya kufanikisha lengo jema, na hivyo akawaita "malofa" Kwa sababu hiyo.
5. Tarehe 27 Desemba 2025, Mtu ambaye hakutaja jina lake, alisambaza barua ya wazi kwa Balozi wa Papa juu ya kauli ya Askofu Ruwa’ichi, kwenye mitandao ya kijamii, ikibeba “malalamiko rasmi dhidi ya kauli na utaratibu wa Askofu Mkuu Yuda Thaddeus Ruwaichi,” ambapo mwandishi alimwomba Papa kuchunguza mwenendo wa Askofu Ruwaichi ambao alidai unaenda kinyume na misingi ya Kikanuni, kwa kuingilia Mamlaka ya Vatican na kutumia lugha ya dharau dhidi ya Waumini kwa kuwaita Wasaliti wa Imani ya Kikrito wanaoendekeza njaa, na hivyo malofa.
6. Na tarehe 30 Desemba 2025, Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura, ambaye ni mseminari wa zamani aliyefukuzwa seminarini kwa sababu ya ukosefu wa wito wa kipadre rohoni mwake, alikutana na waandishi wa habari na kumlaumu Askofu Ruwaichi kwa kukiuka sheria za Kanisa katoliki, na hasa kifungu namba 212(3) kinachowapa waumini katoliki haki ya kuhoji utendaji kazi wa wakuu wa kanisa, pale waumini wanapokosa haki zao za kidini.

Baada ya kutafakari kwa makini matamshi ya umma yanayoendelea, ambayo yamechochewa na uhusiano tata kati ya TEC na Serikali nchini Tanzania, nimeamua kutoa maoni binafsi, kwa kutumia mfumo wa “amicus curiae brief,” yaani "tamko la rafiki wa mahakama ya umma."

Jukumu la tamko hili ni kuwasaidia wadau wa mahakama ya umma kufanya maamuzi sahihi kwa kuwapatia ushahidi na hoja zote muhimu katika mfumo unaoweza kupokelewa na akili kirahisi.

III. MASUALA YANAYOBISHANIWA KATI YA SERIKALI NA KANISA KATOLIKI

Swali kuu linalojibiwa na tamko hili ni hili hapa: Matamko Gani ya TEC yanayodaiwa kuvuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, na kama kweli yalivuka ukuta huo ni kwa kiasi gani yalivuka ukuta huo?

Kwa mujibu wa jadi na historia pana ya kidunia, ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha baadhi ya mambo ya kidini na baadhi ya mambo za kisiasa, ulibuniwa na wanazuoni ili kufanikisha mambo matatu.

Yaani, kulinda uhuru wa kidini katika jamii yenye dini nyingi, kwa kulinda haki za taasisi za kidini dhidi ya makucha ya kiserikali, kulinda haki za Serikali dhidi ya makucha ya kidini, na kulinda haki za taasisi moja ya kidini dhidi ya makucha ya taasisi Baki za kidini.

Hivyo, kati ya serikali na wadau baki, ukuta huu unafanya kazi kama mlango wenye bawaba zinazouruhusu kufunguka kuelekea pande mbili.

Yaani kuelekea upande wa siasa katika wakati mwafaka, na kuelekea upande wa dini katika wakati mwafaka.

Yaani, kwa upande mmoja, ukuta huu unapaswa kuruhusu mtiririko wa mawazo fulani kutoka upande wa dini kwenda upande wa siasa, na unapaswa kuzuia mtiririko wa mawazo mengine ya kidini yasiende upande wa siasa.

Na kwa upande wa pili, ukuta huu unapaswa kuruhusu mtiririko wa mawazo fulani kutoka upande wa serikali kwenda upande wa dini, na unapaswa kuzuia mtiririko wa mawazo mengine ya kisiasa yasiende upande wa dini.

Na pili, kila milango ya ukuta huu inapofunguliwa kwenda upande wowote, inapaswa kufanya kazi kama "chekecheo," yaani chujio lenye uweze wa kuzuia chembechembe zenye ukubwa unaopungua kipenyo cha urefu fulani na kuruhusu chembechembe zenye ukubwa unaozidi kipenyo cha urefu fulani kupita.

Hivyo basi, dokezo hili linapendekeza kutoa mtazamo wa kiufundi kuhusu maswali madogo yafuatayo, yakiwa ndio yanayobishaniwa na pande mbili husika, yaani:

1. Ni kweli kwamba viongozi wa TEC kwamba hawajui maana ya sheria wala umuhimu wake katika kuendesha nchi yenye dini nyingi?
2. Kama ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha "mambo ya kidini" na "mambo ya kisiasa", ni kama "chekecheo" ambalo linapaswa kutusaidia kutambua haki za taasisi za kidini dhidi ya taasisi za kisiasa, haki hizo ni zipi?
3. Kama ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha "mambo ya kidini" na "mambo ya kisiasa", ni kama "chekecheo" ambalo linapaswa kutusaidia kutambua haki za taasisi za kisiasa dhidi ya taasisi za kidini, haki hizo ni zipi?
4. Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia ni yapi na yalibeba maudhui gani?
5. Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kweli yanavuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, kama Rais Samia alivyodokeza?
6. Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kweli yanavuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini yanayowahusu TEC na mambo ya kidini yanayozihusu taasisi baki za kidini, kama Rais Samia alivyodai?
7. Kuna muumini yeyote wa Kanisa Katoliki ambaye anapaswa kukerwa na Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kiasi kwamba anastahili kuwasilisha malalamiko rasmi dhidi ya TEC mbele ya Balozi wa Papa, kama wanavyodai kina Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura?
8. Vijana walioandika Barua ya kumshtaki Padre KITIMA kwa Papa walifuata utaratibu sahihi unaitajwa ndani ya Sheria za Ianisa Katoliki?
9. Ni kweli kwamba vijana waliodai kuandika barua ya malalamiko dhidi ya Padre Kitima kwenda kwa Papa ni "malofa" kwa maana ya “waasi waliosaliti sauti ya dhamiri zao bila sababu nzuri ya kufanya hivyo"?
10. Na, Je, ni nafuu gani ambayo kila pande katika mzozo huu, yaani serikali, Kanisa Katoliki na umma mpana, unastahili?

IV. UTARATIBU ULIOTUMIKA KUFANYA UTAFITI

Utafiti huu umefanyika kwa kutumia mkakati wa "information gap analysis and evaluation," ambapo mbinu zifuarazo zilitumika:

1. Kuandaa swali kuu la utafiti,
2. Kuvunja swali kuu la utafiti katika mswali madogo nane,
3. Kubainisha taarifa zinazofahamika.
4. Kubainisha taarifa zinazokosekana.
5. Kubainisha vyanzo muhimu vya taarifa zinazokosekana, vikiwemo vitabu, makala na tovuti.
6. Kusoma vitabu, makala, tovuti na kusililiza video zenye maudhui yanayohusiana na maswali ya utafiti.
7. Kufanya uchambuzi wa taarifa zilizokuswanywa,
8. Kufanya usanisi wa taarifa hizo kwa kuongozwa na mchujo wa kiakili unaoongozwa na kanuni za kawaida za kimantiki,
9. Kuandika taarifa hii, na
10. Kuchapisha taarifa hii katika jukwaa la kidijitali la JamiiForums.com

Hatimaye, marejeo muhimu yametajwa mwishoni mwa tamko hili, na baadhi ya nakala pepe zake kuambatanishwa.

V. MISINGI YA KATIBA, SHERIA, FALSAFA YA SHERIA NA HAKI ZA WATU

Kwa ajili ya kuweza kuyajibu maswali haya kwa ukamilifu ni muhimu na lazima kujenga msingi wa kikatiba, kisheria na kifalsafa kuhusu mahusiano kati ya mambo ya dini na mambo ya siasa katika Taifa lenye dini, makabila, mapokeo, na rangi anwai.

1. Mtazamo wa kanisa katoliki kuhusu falsafa ya sheria

Kanisa Katoliki ni taasisis yenye umri wa miaka 2,000, likiwa ni mwalimu wa sheria ya maadili asilia, mwenye kuamini kwamba uwepo wake ulianzishwa na Yesu Kristo mwenyewe, ambaye aliwapa mitume wake, hasa Petro, mamlaka ya kuongoza kanisa.

Kanisa Katoliki lilianza rasmi siku ya Pentekoste ya kwanza baada ya kifo cha Yesu, ambapo mitume walipokea Roho Mtakatifu na kuanza kuhubiri Injili.

Andiko linalotumika kuhalalisha Petro kuwa papa wa kwanza ni Mathayo 16:15-19. Hivyo, Kanisa Katoliki linaamini kwamba Petro alikuwa kiongozi wa mitume na kwamba mamlaka yake ilipitishwa kwa warithi wake, ambao ni mapapa.

Mtume Petro (1 KK–68BK) anachukuliwa kuwa Papa wa kwanza, na mamlaka yake ilipitishwa kwa warithi wake.

Tangu wakati huo, Kanisa Katoliki hufanya kazi kama mtendaji wa kipekee, mwenye ushawishi, na asiye wa serikali katika mfumo wa kisheria wa kimataifa hasa kupitia Jimbo Kuu la Roma ambalo lina utu wa kisheria unaotambulika kimataifa.

Kama chombo huru, Jimbo Kuu la Roma hufanya kazi kama mamlaka ya maadili na mtendaji wa kidiplomasia anayeshiriki katika kuunda sheria za kimataifa na majadiliano ya haki za binadamu.

Katika muktadha wa mfumo wa sheria asilia za kidunia, Kanisa Katoliki hufanya kazi kama mlezi wa maadili, mwananadharia wa msingi, na sauti ya ukosoaji inayotetea uwepo wa ukweli halisi wa maadili unaopatikana kwa njia ya akili ya kibinadamu.

Ingawa mifumo ya kidunia mara nyingi huweka sheria kulingana na makubaliano ya watu binafsi au mikataba ya kijamii, Kanisa Katoliki linasisitiza kwamba sheria asilia ni utaratibu ambao haukuundwa na watu ambao hutumika kama kizio muhimu cha sheria zilizotungwa na binadamu, hasa kuhusu ulinzi wa haki za binadamu, maisha, na familia.

Kwa sababu hizi, Kanisa katoliki linafundisha na kuukubali ukweli kwamba, nchi inayoendeshwa kwa kufuata mfumo wa sheria zinazotokana na kanuni za maumbile ya watu hutegemea uwepo wa nadharia thabiti ya kisheria yenye kutoa jawabu rasmi la kifalsafa kuhusu swali lifuatala: "sheria ni kitu gani na sio kitu gani?"

Na kwa hakika, Kanisa katoliki linafundisha kuwa, Tanzania ni nchi yenye kufuata mfumo wa sheria zinazotokana na kanuni za maumbile ya watu, kwa sababu ya maneno "secular ... state" yanayotajwa katika ibara ya 3(1) ya Katiba ya nchi yetu.

Hata hivyo, katika uchambuzi huu kuna tatizo la uhalali wa matumizi ya maneno "secular ... state" katika ngazi ya kikatiba, ambao unapaswa kunyooshwa.

Sababu ni kwamba baadhi ya "wakubwa" waliamua kuchakachua katiba ya Kiswahili kwa kulichomoa kabisa neno hili.

Kwenye Katiba ya Kiingereza, ibara ya 3(1) inasomeka hivi:

"The United Republic is a democratic, secular and socialist state which adheres to multi-party democracy," (article 3(1)).​

Na kwenye Katiba ya Kiswahili, ibara hiyo inasomeka hivi:

"3(1) Jamhuri ya Muungano ni nchi ya kidemokrasia na ya kijamaa, yenye kufuata mfumo wa vyama vingi vya siasa."​

Hivyo, ni wazi kuwa, ama kimakosa au kwa makusudi, tafsiri ya ibara hii katika Katiba ya Kiswahili imeruka maneno "secular ... state," na hivyo kuifanya nakala ya Kiswahili kuwa batili kwa kiwango hicho .

Hivyo, kabla ya kuendelea na mjadala, napendekeza kurekebisha dosari hii kwa kutoa tafsiri yangu ya ibara ya 3(1) kama ifuatavyo:

"Jamhuri ya Muungano ni nchi ya kidemokrasia, yenye kufuata mfumo wa sheria zinazotokana na kanuni za maumbile ya watu, siasa ya ujamaa, na vyama vingi vya siasa" (Ibara ya 3(1)).​

Sentensi hii ni tafsiri yangu ya maneno yanayopatikana kwenye nakala ya Katiba ya nchi ya Kiingereza, ambapo nimetafsiri maneno "secular ... state" kuwa kisawe cha "nchi yenye kufuata mfumo wa sheria zinazotokana na kanuni za maumbile ya watu."

Maneno haya yanamaanisha "mfumo wa haki na majukumu asilia." Huu ni "ukweli asilia" au "maarifa asilia" yanayopatikana kupitia "milango ya maarifa asilia," ya macho, masikio, ulimi, pua, ngozi na ubongo.

Kuhusu maneno "secular ... state" nimetumia nakala ya Katiba ya Kiingereza ambayo haijachakachuliwa kama inavyopatikana kwenye tovuti ya Ofisi ya Mkaguzi na Mdhibiti Mkuu wa Hesabu za Serikali (National Audit Office).

Baada ya kusema hayo, nataka niharakishe kusema kuwa, "mfumo wa sheria zinazotokana na kanuni za maumbile ya watu" ni seti ndogo ndani ya seti kuu ya sheria zote zinazoratibu tabi za vitu anwai vilivyoko hapa duniani, mbali na watu.

Katika seti kuu tajwa kuna mfumo wa sheria za maadili ya kikristo, mfumo wa sheria za maadili ya kiislamu, mfumo wa sheria za maadili ya wapagani, na orodha inaendelea.

Wakristo, Waislamu, Wayahudi na dini kadhaa baki ni waumini wa dini zinazoongozwa na "mfumo wa sheria zinazotokana na kanuni za kiufunuo" kama unavyofahamika kupitia msahafu wa dini husika.

Kuna mfumo wa sheria za kuongoza tabia za vitu hai kama vile watu, wanyama na mimea; sheria za kuongoza tabia za vitu visivyo na akili kama vile mimea, wanyama hayawani na wadudu; sheria za kuongoza tabia za vitu visivyo hai kama vile sayari na miamba; na orodha inaendelea.

Kwa kuzingatia kitu kinachoitwa "Object Oriented Thought Process" inayojumuisha "Encapsulation, Abstraction, Inheritance, and Polymorphism," mchoro ufuatao unaonyesha uhusiano wa kingazi uliopo kati ya seti hizi za sheria, seti ya juu kabisa ikiwa ni "ultimate law" inayotoka kwa "ultimate law giver."


View attachment 3533357
Source: Own work based on Matt Weisfeld (2008), The Object-Oriented Thought Process (Pearson Education); William S. Brewbaker III (2006); and William S. Brewbaker III, What Is Christian Legal Thought, 2 J. Christian Legal Thought 5 (2012).

Wanateolojia wanasema "ultimate law giver" ni Mungu, wakati wanasiasa wanasema wanaweza kusonga mbele kwa msaada wa mchujo wa kifikra pekee bila kukanusha wala kukiri uwepo wa Mungu huyo.

Kwa mujibu wa waandishi Anver Emon, Matthew Levering na David Novak (2014) katika kitabu chao "Natural Law: A Jewish, Christian and Islamic Trialogue," yote hii ni mifumo inayofanana kwa kiasi kikubwa na kutofautiana pia. Nitafupisha maudhui na muundo wa kila mfumo wa kimaadili hapa chini.

Mfumo wa sheria za maagizo ya kiserikali (positive law)

Ni maoni yangu kuwa, ndani ya Katiba ya Tanzania maneno "secular ... state" yanapaswa kutafsiriwa kwa kusoma pamoja vifungu vyote vinavyoongelea chimbuko la haki na majukumu ya watu yaliyotajwa katika katiba hii.

Vifungu hivyo ndani ya Katiba ya Tanzania (1977) ni hivi hapa: 8(1)(b), 9(a), 9(f), 9(g) na 11(2). Yaani:

• “8(1)(b) Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania ni Nchi inayofuata misingi ya demokrasia na haki ya kijamii, na kwa hiyo lengo kuu la serikali litakuwa ni ustawi wa wananchi.”
• “9(a) Mamlaka ya Nchi na vyombo vyake vyote vinawajibika kuelekeza sera na shughuli zake zote katika lengo la kuhakikisha kwamba utu na haki nyinginezo zote za binadamu zinaheshimiwa na kuthaminiwa.”
• “9(f) Mamlaka ya Nchi na vyombo vyake vyote vinawajibika kuelekeza sera na shughuli zake zote katika lengo la kuhakikisha kwamba heshima ya binadamu inahifadhiwa na kudumishwa kwa kufuata Kanuni za Tangazo la Dunia kuhusu Haki za Binadamu.”
• “9(g) Mamlaka ya Nchi na vyombo vyake vyote vinawajibika kuelekeza sera na shughuli zake zote katika lengo la kuhakikisha kwamba Serikali na vyombo vyake vyote vya umma vinatoa nafasi zilizo sawa kwa raia wote, wake kwa waume, bila ya kujali rangi, kabila, dini au hali ya mtu.”
• “9(k) Mamlaka ya Nchi na vyombo vyake vyote vinawajibika kuelekeza sera na shughuli zake zote katika lengo la kuhakikisha kwamba nchi inatawaliwa kwa kufuata misingi ya demokrasia.”
• “11(2) Kila mtu anayo haki ya kujielimisha, na kila raia atakuwa huru kutafuta elimu katika fani anayopenda hadi kufikia upeo wowote kulingana na stahili na uwezo wake.”
• "17(1) Kila raia wa Jamhuri ya Muungano anayo haki ya kwenda kokote katika Jamhuri ya Muungano..."

Kwa mujibu wa vifungu hivyo vya katiba, mchujo wa kimantiki unaofanywa na Kanisa Katoliki unaonyesha kuwa, Tanzania tunao "mfumo wa sheria zinazotokana na kanuni za maumbile ya watu" wenye kutambulishwa na mambo makuu matatu yafuatayo:

• Maumbile ya kiutu: Kila mtu ana akili na utashi
  • Hazina ya "akili" ya "kujielimisha" hadi kuondokana na "ujinga" kulingana na "uwezo wake” asilia wa kujifunza kutokana na mazingira yake (ibara ya 5(2)(b), 9(i), 11(2)).
  • Hazina ya uhuru unaomwezesha kufanya "uchaguzi" na ubaguzi wa "kidemokrasia" katika sekta zote za maisha yake (ibara ya 5(1), 9(k)), na
  • Hazina ya "mwili" unaomwezesha kila mtu "kwenda kokote" anakotaka kufika (ibara ya 17(1), 37(2)).
• Tunu zilizo kielelezo cha malengo ya kiutu: Kila mtu anayo tamaa asilia ya kufukuzia tunu za kitu, zenye kumwelekeza katika "ustawi" kamili, tunu hizo zikiwa ni pamoja na: utu, ustawi, maendeleo, usawa mbele ya utu, heshima ya binadamu, usawa mbele ya sheria, uhai, uhuru, uhuru dhidi ya umaskini, uhuru dhidi ya ujinga, uhuru dhidi ya maradhi, faragha, kusafiri, kufikiri, kueleza mawazo binafsi, uhuru wa maoni, uhuru wa imani, uhuru wa kushirikiana na watu wengine kuuunda vikundi vya kijamii, uhuru wa kushiriki katika shughuli za umma, kazi, ujira, elimu, mali (ibara ya 8(1)(b), 9, na 12-30)
• Maadili yanayoongoza matendo ya kiutu: Kila mtu anayo hulka ya kufuata kanuni za maadili zinazomwezesha kufanya "uchaguzi" wa matendo gani atekeleze na matendo yapi ayakwepe ili aweze kufikia "ustawi" wake kwa kamilifu. (ibara ya 12-30).

Kwa ajili ya ufafanuzi, "mfumo wa sheria zinazotokana na kanuni za maumbile ya watu" unazo sifa zifuatazo:

• Muundo wa binadamu: Mwili, akili, utashi huru, na tama ya kufukuzia ustawi wake kwa kupigania mema na kukwepa mabaya.
• Nafasi ya mchujo wa kiakili: Mchujo wa kiakili ni muhimu katika kutafsiri kanuni za maumbile na mapokeo ya kijadi.
• Vyanzo vya maadili: Akili, maumbile na mapokeo ya kijadi
• Chimbuko la akili: KIla mtu anazaliwa nazo, lakini hakuna uhakika kama zinatoka kwa Mungu au hapana.
• Chimbuko la maadili asilia: Mchujo wa akili ya kibinadamu
• Tunu muhimu: Madili asilia yanalenga kulinda tunu muhimu kama vile utu, uhuru, uhai, afya, maarifa, ndoa, familia na mali.
• Ustawi wa watu: Kuzingatia maadili ya asilia kunaleta ustawi wa watu na kuyakaidi kunaleta misha mabaya.
• Uhusiano kati ya maadili asilia na maadili ya ufunuo: Maadili asilia yanalaliana na maadili ya ufunuo kwa kiwango hile ambacho mchujo wa kiali wa watu wote utakionyesha.

Mfumo wa maadili ya Kiyahudi

• Mwasisi: Nabii Muda wa Torati
• Muundo wa binadamu: Mwili, akili, utashi huru, na tama ya kufukuzia ustawi wake kwa kupigania mema na kukwepa mabaya.
• Nafasi ya mchujo wa kiakili: Mchujo wa kiakili ni muhimu katika kutafsiri ufunuo, maumbile na mapokeo.
• Vyanzo vya maadili: Akili, Maumbile na Ufunuo wa Agano la Kale
• Chimbuko la akili: Mungu
• Chimbuko la maadili asilia: Mungu
• Tunu muhimu: Madili ya kidini yanalenga kulinda tunu muhimu kama vile utu, uhuru, uhai, afya, maarifa, ndoa, familia na mali.
• Ustawi wa watu: Kuzingatia maadili ya Kidini kunaleta ustawi wa watu na kuyakaidi kunaleta misha mabaya.
• Uhusiano kati ya maadili asilia na maadili ay ufunuo: Maadili ay ufunuo yanakamilisha maadili asilia.

Tunaweza kuonyesha muundo wa mfumo huu kwa msaada wa "mchoro wa kimfumo" wenye sehemu tatu zifuatazo:

Mfumo wa maadili ya Kiislamu

• Mwasisi: Mtume Mohamed
• Muundo wa binadamu: Mwili, akili, utashi huru, na tama ya kufukuzia ustawi wake kwa kupigania mema na kukwepa mabaya.
• Nafasi ya mchujo wa kiakili: Mchujo wa kiakili ni muhimu katika kutafsiri ufunuo, maumbile na mapokeo.
• Vyanzo vya maadili: Akili, Maumbile na Ufunuo wa Kurani na mapokeo ya Sunnah
• Chimbuko la akili: Mungu
• Chimbuko la maadili asilia: Mungu
• Tunu muhimu: Madili ya kidini yanalenga kulinda tunu muhimu kama vile utu, uhuru, uhai, afya, maarifa, ndoa, familia na mali.
• Ustawi wa watu: Kuzingatia maadili ya Kidini kunaleta ustawi wa watu na kuyakaidi kunaleta misha mabaya.
• Uhusiano kati ya maadili asilia na maadili ay ufunuo: Maadili ay ufunuo yanakamilisha maadili asilia.

Tunaweza kuonyesha muundo wa mfumo huu kwa msaada wa "mchoro wa kimfumo" wenye sehemu tatu zifuatazo:

Mfumo wa maadili ya Kikristo

• Mwasisi: Yesu Kristo
• Muundo wa binadamu: Mwili, akili, utashi huru, na tama ya kufukuzia ustawi wake kwa kupigania mema na kukwepa mabaya.
• Nafasi ya mchujo wa kiakili: Mchujo wa kiakili ni muhimu katika kutafsiri ufunuo, maumbile na mapokeo.
• Vyanzo vya maadili: Akili, Maumbile, Ufunuo wa Biblia na mapokeo kutikana na maandiko ya mababa wa Kanisa
• Chimbuko la akili: Mungu
• Chimbuko la maadili asilia: Mungu
• Tunu muhimu: Madili ya kidini yanalenga kulinda tunu muhimu kama vile utu, uhuru, uhai, afya, maarifa, ndoa, familia na mali.
• Ustawi wa watu: Kuzingatia maadili ya Kidini kunaleta ustawi wa watu na kuyakaidi kunaleta misha mabaya.
• Uhusiano kati ya maadili asilia na maadili ay ufunuo: Maadili ay ufunuo yanakamilisha maadili asilia.

Hivyo basi, kwa mujibu wa falsafa ya sheria (jurisprudence), kuongelea "mfumo wa sheria zinazotokana na kanuni za maumbile ya watu" ni kuongelea aina mojawapo ya sheria zinazoweza kugundulika hapa ulimwenguni (Wayne Harry Lott 2016).

Kwa pamoja sheria hizo zote zinaunda seti kuu ya sheria, seti ambayo kwa hapa nitairejea kama "Ultimate Law," yaani "Seti Kuu".

Hayati Profesa Thomas Aquinas (1225BK–1274BK) aliibatiza hii "seti kuu" jila la "Eternal Law," lakini sikubaliana na jina hili, kwa sababu niliozionyesha hapo juu. Mie nimeibatiza jina la "Ultimate Law."

Hapa napenda kuongeza kuwa, katika mtazamo wa kutofungamana na dini yoyote, tunapaswa kuelewa kuwa chimbuko la "Ultimate Law" ni "Ultimate Reality."

Na kwa ujumla, "Ultimate Reality" anaweza kuwa Mungu wa Biblia, Mungu wa Kurani, Mungi wa Wahindu, Mungu wa Wabuda, Mungu wa Wapagani, au Mungu Asiyejulikana. Laini, sio kazi ya wanasiasa kubaini mungu wa kweli ni yupi.

Kutokana na yote haya, sasa tuone fasili ya neno "sheria" bila kujali tunaongelea sheria iliyo katika tabaka gani.

Kwa mujibu wa Angus Brook (2019:1-5) sheria zilizomo katika seti kuu zinafanana kwa sababu moja kuu. Yaani ni kanuni zinazokubaliana na fasili ya jumla ya neno "sheria" isemayo kuwa:

"Law is a descriptive, prescriptive or imperative rule that governs a process of movement or change, pertaining to humans, animals, plants or inanimate physical objects, from potentiality to actuality" (Angus Brook 2019:1-5, my paraphrase).​

Fasili hii inafanana sana na ile iliyotolewa na Profesa Thomas Aquinas anayesema kuwa:

“Law is a certain rule and measure of acts whereby [an entity] is induced to [move from potency to] act or is restrained from acting” (Summa Theologica, 1–2, q. 90, aa. 1, 3; Summa contra Gentiles., 3, 114).​

Kuhusu fasili hizi, ni muhimu kuelewa kuwa:

The phrase "moving from potency to act" is a core metaphysical concept defining motion (change) as the process where something transitions from its potential (what it could be) to its actuality (what it is). ​

​

For example: A coffee cup is potentially hot, becomes actually cold (change in temperature); A student is potentially knowledgeable, becomes actually knowledgeable (learning); a seed is potentially a tree, becomes actually a tree (growth/generation); and a traveler from Dar to Dodoma is potentially at Dodoma, and becomes actually at Dodoma (motion from one point to another). ​

​

The transformation from "potency to act" requires an external "mover" as the ultimate source of all actualization, in these cases, the mover is simply a "law."​

Na kwa kujumuisha sasa tunaweza kuzigawa sheria zote katika makundi matatu, yaani:

• Sheria zinazofafanua maadili (prescriptive laws/ought-laws);
• Sheria zinazofafanua mila, desturi na maagizo ya serikali nchi (imperative laws/must-laws); na
• Sheria zinazofafanua misingi ya kimaumbile (descriptive laws/is-laws).

Kundi la kwanza ni sheria zinazofafanua maadili asilia. Hizi ni sheria zinazotaja "haki na majukumu" yanayogunduliwa na watu kwa kutumia milango sita ya fahamu asilia, yaani macho, pua, ulimi, ngozi, masikio na mchujo wa kiakili.

Sheria hizi zinaongelea upaswa wa kimaadili, yaani "moral-ought-ness," unaotamkwa na walinzi wa maadili ya jamii, ambao ni wanafalsafa. Zinatusaidia kutofautisha mema na mabaya. mfano ni:

• Usiibe mali ya jirani yako;
• Usiue mtu asiye na hatia;
• Usiseme uwongo;
• Wahesimu wazazi wake;

Sheria hizi hazibadiliki, zinaweza kuvunjwa na watu, zinagusa nchi zote duniani, na zilikuwepo tangu milele yote.

Kundi la pili ni sheria zinazofafanua mila, desturi na mapokeo ya kidini. Hizi ni sheria zinazotaja "haki na majukumu" yanayogunduliwa na manabii waliobahatika kuwasiliana na Mungu moja kwa moja, kwa niaba ya watu baki.

Sheria hizi zinaongelea upaswa wa kimaadili, yaani "moral-ought-ness," unaotamkwa kwenye misahafu ya dini za kisekta. Kwa mfano:

• Sheria ya kusali mara tatu kwa siku katika uslamu;
• Sheria za sakramenti katika ukristo;
• Sheria za vazi la hijabu katika dini ya kiislamu.

Hizi ni sheria ambazo hazitungwi na watu, raia wanaweza kuzivunja, haziwezi kubadilishwa na watu, zinatumika ndani ya jumuiya ya waumini ambao ni wafuasi wa dini husika, na misahafu inayozitaja haikuwepo tangu milele yote.

Kundi la tatu ni sheria zinazofafanua mila, desturi na maagizo ya serikali nchi. Hizi ni sheria zinazoongelea matendo ambayo ni lazima kufanyika au kuepukwa, kwa mujibu wa maamuzi ya bunge, yaani "imperative laws," zinazoongelea ulazima, yaani "statutory-must-ness."

Nchini Tanzania, tangu tupate uhuru mwaka 1961 mpaka sasa hivi mwaka 2025 kuna sheria 450 za aina hii. Sheria hizo zinajumuisha:

• Sheria ya vyama vya siasa;
• Sheria ya ajira na mahusiano kazini;
• Sheria ya pensheni;
• Sheria ya mazingira;
• Sheria ya uchaguzi;
• Na orodha inaendelea.

Hizi ni sheria zinazotungwa na viongozi wa watu kupitia vikao vinavyoongozwa na kanuni ya wengi wape, raia wanaweza kuzivunja, zinaweza kubadilishwa na viongozi waliozitunga, zinatumika ndani ya nchi pekee, na hazikuwepo tangu milele yote.

Kundi la nne ni sheria zinazofafanua misingi ya kimaumbile. Hizi ni sheria zinazoongelea mabadiliko asilia ambayo hujirudia katika namna inayoyabirika, yaani "descriptive laws."

Ni sheria zinazoongelea utabirifu wa tabia za vitu visivyo na akili, kama zinavyosomeka katika masomo ya fizikia, kemia na bayolojia, yaani "descriptive-is-ness." Hapa kuna mifano ifuatayo:

• Sheria inayolazimisha kitu chochote chenye uzito kudondoka chini badala ya kupaa juu;
• Sheria inayoruhusu sayari, nyota, na mwezi kuzunguka katika njia zake bila kugongana;
• Sheria inayoruhusu binadamu kuza binadamu badala ya kuzaa mbuzi;
• Sheria inayoruhusu mimba kubadilika na kuwa mtu mzima;
• Sheria inayoruhusu yai la kuku kubadilika na kuwa kuku badala ya kuwa bata,
• Sheria inayoruhusu mbegu ya mchungwa kubadilika hadi kuwa mti wa mchungwa badala ya kuwa mti wa mpera;
• Sheria inayoruhusu mapafu kuchuja kaboni badala ya kuchuja sumu kama linavyofanya ini.
• Sheria inayoruhusu figo kuchuja mkojo badala ya kuchuja kanoni kama yanavyofanya mapafu.
• Sheria zinazoruhusu jicho kuona, sikio kusikia, pua kunusa, ngozi ya vidole kupapasa, na akili kufanya mchujo wa kimantiki.
• Sheria inayoruhusu muungano wa kikemia kati ya oksijeni na hydrojeni kuunda maji badala ya mvinyo;
• Sheria ya ugavi na utashi katika uchumi inayoratibu mabadiliko ya bei sokoni;

Sheria hizi hazibadiliki, haziwezi kuvunjwa na watu, zinagusa nchi zote duniani, na zilikuwepo tangu milele yote.

Majumuisho muhimu kuhusu aina za sheria: Kulingana na John Stuart Mackenzie (2004:163ff), makundi haya manne ya sheria yanaweza kuunganishwa na kutofautisha kwa kutumia vigezo vikuu vinne. Kuna sheria:

• Zinazoweza kubadilika na zisizoweza kubadilika (changeable vs unchangeable laws);
• Zinazoweza kukiukwa na watu na zisizoweza kukiukwa (violable vs inviolable laws);
• Zilizokuwepo tangu milele yote na ambazo zinatungwa na watu siku hadi siku (eternal vs occurent laws);
• Zinazotumika nchi zote na zisizotumika nchi zote (global vs local laws).

Kwa kuunganisha makundi haya manne tunaweza kupata zaidi ya aina 16 za sheria. Hizi ni seti ndogo 16 za sheria zilizo ndani ya seti kuu ya sheria zote zinazoongoza mabadiliko yanayoambatana na matukio au matendo yote ulimwenguni.

Thomas Aquinas aliibatiza seti hii jina la "Eternal Law". Lakini, kutokana na uchambuzi uliofanyika hapo juu ni wazi kuwa jina hilo ni "misnomer".

Kwa hapa nimependekeza kuwa hii seti kuu ya sheria zote iitwe "Ultimate Law," na kwamba maudhui yake yanaweza kugunduliwa kwa njia tofauti.

Mfano, Waislamu wanagundua baadhi ya sheria zilizomo katika "Ultimate Law" kwa kutumia msahafu wa Kurani; na hivyo kugundua "mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo" kwa mujibu wa dini ya Kiislamu.

Wakristo wanagundua baadhi ya sheria zilizomo katika "Ultimate Law" kwa kutumia msahafu wa Biblia; na hivyo kugundua "mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo" kwa mujibu wa dini ya Kikristo.

Wahindu wanagundua baadhi ya sheria zilizomo katika "Ultimate Law" kwa kutumia msahafu wa Kihindu; na hivyo kugundua "mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo" kwa mujibu wa dini ya Kihindu.

Wabuda wanagundua baadhi ya sheria zilizomo katika "Ultimate Law" kwa kutumia miwani ya msahafu wa Kibuda; na hivyo kugundua "mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo" kwa mujibu wa dini ya Kibuda.

Waumini wa dini baki zipatazo 1,000 hadi sasa watagundua baadhi ya sheria zilizomo katika "Ultimate Law" kwa kutumia miwani ya msahafu yao; na hivyo kugundua "mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo" kwa mujibu wa misahafu ya dini husika.

Na wanasayansi, wanafalsafa na wapagani wanagundua baadhi ya sheria zilizomo katika "Ultimate Law" kwa kutumia milango sita ya fahamu, yaani macho, masikio, pua, ulimi, ngozi na mchujo wa kimantiki; na hivyo kugundua "mfumo wa haki na majukumu asilia" kwa mujibu wa mifereji asilia ya maarifa.

Uhusiano kati ya sheria za maumbile, sheria za kidini na sheria za nchi: Katika muktadha huu, mchujo wa kimantiki unaonyesha kuwa, katika jamii yenye dini nyingi zilizogawanyika katika madhehenu anwai, mambo manne yanawezekana kuhusu chimbuko la ukweli unaotumiwa na serikali katika kubuni na kutekeleza sera za kuendesha nchi. Yaani:

• Serikali inayoendesha nchi kwa kufuata mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo yanayokubaliwa na dini mojawapo na kuifanya dini hiyo kuwa dini ya kitaifa, lakini bila kufuta haki ya uhuru wa dhamiri kuhusu "mambo ya dini," na hivyi dini zingine kubaki zikiwa ni dini za daraja la pili; au
• Serikali inayoendesha nchi kwa kufuata mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo unaokubaliwa na dini zote zilizopo nchini (religious doctrines intersection), lakini bila kuifanya dini yoyote kuwa dini rasmi ya kitaifa na bila kufuta haki ya uhuru wa dhamiri kuhusu "mambo ya dini"; au
• Serikali inayoendesha nchi kwa kufuata mfumo wa haki na majukumu asilia badala ya mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo, ambapo serikali hii huchukua msimamo kwamba haina uhakika kama miungu wapo au hawapo, na hivyo, kuacha swali hilo lijibiwe na raia mmoja mmoja kwa kutumia haki yake ya uhuru wa dhamiri kuhusu "mambo ya dini."
• Serikali inayoendesha nchi kwa kufuata mfumo wa haki na majukumu asilia badala ya mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo, ambapo serikali hii huchukua msimamo kwamba hakuna miungu, na hivyo, kufuta haki ya uhuru wa dhamiri kuhusu "mambo ya dini."

2. Misingi ya katiba

Kwa kuzingatia ufafanuzi wa kisemantiki hapo juu, sasa naweza kusema kwa kujiamini kuwa nchini Tanzania, mahusiano kati ya taasisi za dini na serikali yanaratibiwa kwa kuzingatia mwongozo wa kikatiba unaopatikana katika ibara ya 3(1) kama ikisomwa pamoja na ibara ya 9(g), 13(5), 19(1), 19(2) na 19(3).

Na ibara hizi zinasomeka kama ifuatavyo:

1. "Jamhuri ya Muungano ni nchi ya kidemokrasia, yenye kufuata mfumo wa haki na majukumu asilia badala ya mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiufunuo, siasa ya ujamaa, na vyama vingi vya siasa" (Ibara ya 3(1)).
2. "Kwa hiyo, Mamlaka ya nchi na vyombo vyake vyote vinawajibika kuelekeza sera nashughuli zake zote katika lengo la kuhakikisha... kwamba Serikali na vyombo vyake vyote vya ummavinatoa nafasi zilizo sawa kwa raia wote, wake kwawaume, bila ya kujali rangi, kabila, dini au hali yamtu" (Ibara ya 9(g)).
3. "Kwa madhumuni ya ufafanuzi wa masharti ya ibara hiineno "kubagua" maana yake ni kutimiza haja, haki au mahitajimengineyo kwa watu mbalimbali kwa kuzingatia utaifa wao,kabila, pahala walipotokea, maoni yao ya kisiasa, rangi, dini, jinsia au hali yao ya maisha kwa namna ambayo watu wa ainafulani wanafanywa au kuhesabiwa kuwa dhaifu au duni nakuwekewa vikwazo au masharti ya vipingamizi ambapo watu waaina nyingine wanatendewa tofauti au wanapewa fursa au faidailiyoko nje ya masharti au sifa za lazima, isipokuwa kwamba neno "kubagua" halitafafanuliwa kwa namna ambayo itaizuia Serikalikuchukua hatua za makusudi zenye lengo la kurekebishamatatizo katika jamii." (13(5) )
4. "Kila mtu anastahili kuwa na uhuru wa mawazo, imani na uchaguzi katika mambo ya dini, pamoja na uhuru wa mtu kubadilisha dini au imani yake." (Ibara ya 19(1) )
5. "Bila ya kuathiri sheria zinazohusika za Jamhuri yaMuungano, kazi ya kutangaza dini, kufanya ibada na kueneza dini itakuwa ni huru na jambo la hiari ya mtu ya binafsi, na shughuli na uendeshaji wa jumuiya za dini zitakuwa nje ya shughuli za mamlaka ya nchi." (Ibara ya 19(2))
6. "Kila palipotajwa neno 'dini' katika ibara hii ifahamikekwamba maana yake ni pamoja na madhehebu ya dini, namaneno mengineyo yanayofanana au kuambatana na neno hilonayo yatatafsiriwa kwa maana hiyo." (Ibara ya 19(3) )

Kwa tafsiri yangu, maneno "mambo ya kidini" yanayoongelewa katika ibara ya 19(1) yanarejea "haki na majukumu ya kidini." Kwa hapa yatachukuliwa kama kinyume cha "mambo ya kisiasa" yanayorejea "haki na majukumu ya kisiasa" kama yanavyotekelezwa na taasisi mbalimbali za kitaifa.

3. Misingi ya sheria

Mpaka sasa, Tanzania hatuna sheria maalum iliyotungwa na Bunge kwa ajili ya kufafanua vifungu hivi vya kikatiba juu ya mfumo mwafaka wa mahusiano kati ya dini na serikali.

Lakini, kuna sheria kadhaa zimetafsiri ibara za katika na kuzitolewa mwongozo wa kisekta katika uendeshaji wa nchi. Baadhi ya sheria zinajadiliwa hapa chini.

(a) Sheria ya vyama vya siasa

Kwa mujibu wa ibara ya 19(1)(c), 19(2)(a)(i) na 27(6), katika sheria ya vyama vya siasa, sura ya 258, ya mwaka 2023, zimepiga marufuku vyama vya siasa kuendesha shughuli zake kwa kufuata mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kidini kama unavyopatikana kwenye misahafu na mapokeo ya kidini.

Tunasoma haya:

• "A political party shall not qualify for provisional registration unless...its membership is voluntary and open to the citizens of the United Republic without discrimination on account of gender, disability, religious belief, race, tribe, ethnic origin, profession or occupation" (19(1)(c)).​
• "A political party shall not qualify for provisional registration where, by its constitution, rules and policies or activities ... it aims to advocate or further the interests of ... any religious belief or group" (19(2)(a)(i)).​
• "A person shall not use religion or religious organisation to further the objectives of a political party." (27(6)). ​

(b) Sheria ya Ajira na Mahusiano Kazini

Kifungu cha 7(4) cha Sheria ya Ajira na Mahusiano Kazini (Na. 6 toleo la 2023) kinawakataza waajiri kuwabagua wafanyakazi moja kwa moja au kwa njia isiyo ya moja kwa moja kwa misingi ikiwemo dini, maoni ya kisiasa, rangi, rangi, jinsia, hali ya ndoa, ulemavu, na umri.

(c) Sheria ya vyama vya kijamii

Ibara ya 2(f) ya sheria ya vyama vya kijamii, sura ya 337 toleo la 2023, inatumika kusajili vyama vya kidini na inatoa fasili ifuatayo ya neno "society", ambapo, ibara hii inasema kuwa

"The word 'society' means a non-partisan and non-political association of ten or more persons established for professional, social, cultural, religion or economic benefits or welfare of its members, formed and registered under this Act, but does not include... a political party formed and registered under the Political Parties Act."

Hivyo, chini ya ibara ya 2(f) kuna ukuta wa kisheria unaotenganisha chama cha siasa na taasisi ya kidini.

(d) Sheria ya makosa ya jinai

Kanuni ya Adhabu, Sura ya 16 toleo la 2023, chini ya Sura ya XIV, hasa Kifungu cha 125 (Tusi kwa dini) na 129 (Maneno yanayoumiza hisia za kidini) hutumika kuzuia Makosa Yanayohusiana na Dini.

(e) Majumuisho muhimu

Vifungu hivi vya kikatiba na kisheria vina maana kwamba mambo ya dini na mambo ya siasa yanapaswa kutenganishwa kwa kiwango ambacho kitahakikisha haki, utulivu wa umma, na serikali inayowatendea raia wote kwa usawa, bila kujali imani yao. Yaani:

• Hakuna Vyama vya Siasa vya Kidini: Inakataza uundaji wa chama cha siasa kinachotegemea utambulisho wa kidini au imani, ili kuzuia mgawanyiko katika misingi ya kidini.
• Kampeni za Kisiasa: Sehemu za ibada (mahekalu, misikiti, makanisa) haziwezi kutumika kama majukwaa ya kampeni za uchaguzi, mikutano ya kisiasa, au kuomba kura kwa chama au mgombea maalum.
• Kukatazwa kwa Matamshi ya Chuki: Wanasiasa wanapigwa marufuku kutumia maneno ya kidini ili kuleta uadui, au vurugu kati ya vikundi tofauti vya kidini au kijamii.
• Kutoegemea upande wowote kwa Serikali: Serikali inatarajiwa kubaki bila upande wowote na bila upendeleo kuhusu utekelezwaji wa mambo ya kidini, kuhakikisha utulivu wa umma, uvumilivu, na kutobagua.
• Utungaji sera na Sheria: Ingawa imani binafsi za mwanasiasa zinaweza kushawishi mbinu zao za kisiasa, sheria na sera za umma zinapaswa kutegemea mchujo halali wa kimantiki unaowaunganisha raia wote na kuleta manufaa ya wote, pasipo kuzingatia maagizo ya mafundisho maalum ya kidini.
• Kulinda Haki za Mtu Binafsi: Hatua hii husaidia kulinda uhuru wa dini na imani kwa raia wote, wakiwemo walio wachache na wasioamini, kwa kuhakikisha hakuna dini au mfumo mmoja wa imani unaotawala ajenda ya serikali kwa kutumia ukweli wa kiufunuo.

4. Misingi ya falsafa kuhusu Haki za binadamu

Kifalsafa, chimbuko la "mfumo wa haki na majkumu asilia" ni imani kwamba matendo mabaya kama vile kuiba ni mabaya, sio kwa sababu yanakatazwa na Mungu anayetajwa katika misahafu ya kidini, bali Mungu huyo anayakataza matendo haya kwa sababu ni mabaya.

Kwa hiyo, hitimisho ni kwamba, katika mipaka ya akili ya binadamu, tunaweza, na tunapaswa, kutafuta maelezo asilia kuhusu ubaya wa matendo yetu, bila kulazimika kuchungulia kwenye misahafu wala kuangalia katika mapokeo ya kidini.

Maana ya haki na majukumu

Kulingana na maandiko ya John Finnis 2011:199-205) pamoja na Manuel G. Velasquez (2014:96-111), tangu enzi za Mgiriki aitwaye Aristotle (384–322 KK), Muitaliano aitwaye Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274BK), Mjerumani aitwaye Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), Mmarekani aitwaye Germaine Grisez (1929-2018), Mtanzania aitwaye Julius Nyerere (1922-1999), hadi leo, wanazuoni wanakubaliana kuhusu jawabu la swali lifuatalo:

Haki za binadamu ni kitu gani, sio kitu gani, zina umuhimu gani, na matendo gani yanahesabika kuwa haki za binadamu?
Hasa, wanazuoni hawa wanakubaliana kuwa kila haki ya binadamu inayofahamika inaongelea mambo sita kwa mpigo, yaani:

• Madai (U) aliyo nayo mtu wa kwanza dhidi ya mtu wa pili (claim);
• Mleta madai (V), yaani mtu wa kwanza aliye na madai dhidi ya mtu wa pili (claim-holder);
• Mjibu madai (W), yaani mtu wa pili anayepaswa kutekeleza madai ya mtu wa kwanza (duty-bearer);
• Wajibu (X) unaopaswa kutimizwa na mtu wa pili kwa kufanya au kujizuia kufanya kitendo fulani (duty);
• Tunu (Y) ambayo mtu wa kwanza anapaswa kuwa huru kunufaika nayo (human good);
• Sababu au kigezo (Z) kinachohalalisha madai ya mtu wa kwanza dhidi ya mtu wa pili (justification).

Kwa mfano, katika uhusiano wa mwajiri, mwajiriwa, ujira, mahitaji ya msingi, na kazi iliyofanyika, mchnganuo uko kama ifuatavyo:

• Madai (claim) ni ujira, yaani mshahara unaopaswa kulipwa baada ya kufanya kazi
• Mleta madai (claim-holder) ni mwajiriwa,
• Mbeba jukumu la kujibu madai (duty-bearer) ni mwajiri mwenye jukumu la kulioa mshahara,
• Lengo la kujibu madai (target human good) ni kumwezesha mwajiriwa kujitimizia mahitaji yake ya msingi (chakula, mavazi, malazi, nauli, karo ya watoto, kodi ya pango, umeme, maji), na
• Sababu au kigezo cha kuhalalisha uwepo wa madai (justification) ni kazi iliyofanyika kwa mujibu wa mkataba.

Kwa ujumla, wanazuoni wanakubaliana kuwa haki zote zinazofahamika, zinaweza kugawanwa kwenye makundi manne yafuatayo, bila kubaki:

• Haki za “madai chanya” (positive claim rights),
• Haki za “madai hasi” (negative claim rights),
• Haki za “uhuru chanya” (positive liberty rights) na
• Haki za “uhuru hasi” (negative liberty rights).

Ufafanuzi mfupi wa haki hizi ni kama ifuatavyo:

• Haki ya “madai chanya” (positive claim right) ni madai aliyo nayo mtu wa kwanza (U) dhidi ya mtu wa pili (V), ambapo mtu wa pili anakuwa na wajibu wa kufanya kitendo fulani (W), kwa ajili ya kumwezesha mtu wa kwanza kunufaika na tunu fulani iliyo stahiki yake (X), kwa sababu ya uwepo wa kigezo (Z) kinachohalalisha madai husika.
• Haki ya “madai hasi” (negative claim right) ni madai (U) aliyo nayo mtu wa kwanza (V) dhidi ya mtu wa pili (W), ambapo mtu wa pili anakuwa na wajibu wa kujizuia kufanya kitendo fulani (X), kwa ajili ya kumruhusu mtu wa kwanza kuwa huru kunufaika na tunu fulani iliyo stahiki yake (Y), kwa sababu ya uwepo wa kigezo (Z) kinachohalalisha madai husika.
• Haki ya “uhuru chanya” (positive liberty right) ni madai (u) aliyo nayo mtu wa kwanza (V) dhidi ya mtu wa pili (W), ambapo mtu wa pili anakuwa na wajibu wa kuacha kuingilia hiari ya mtu wa kwanza kufanya kitendo fulani (X), kwa ajili ya kujiwezesha kunufaika na tunu fulani iliyo stahiki yake (Y) kwa njia hiyo, kwa sababu ya kutokuwepo kwa kigezo (Z) kinachomzuia kufanya kitendo hicho.
• Haki ya “uhuru hasi” (negative liberty right) ni madai (U) aliyo nayo mtu wa kwanza (V) dhidi ya mtu wa pili (W), ambapo mtu wa pili anakuwa na wajibu wa kuacha kuingilia hiari ya mtu wa kwanza kuacha kufanya kitendo fulani (X), kwa ajili ya kujiwezesha kunufaika na tunu fulani iliyo stahiki yake (Y) kwa njia hiyo, kwa sababu ya kutokuwepo kwa kigezo (Z) kinachomlazimisha kufanya kitendo hicho.

Hata hivyo, wanazuoni wanatofautiana kuhusu sababu ya kuhalalisha uwepo wa madai yanayohusiana na haki husika.

Chimbuko la uhalali wa haki

Baadhi ya vigezo mbadala vinavyopendekezwa ni kanuni ya kimaadili inayotamka uwepo wa haki fulani (moral law), kanuni ya kibunge inayotamka uwepo wa haki fulani (positive law), heshima ya utu wa binadamu (human dignity), misukumo ya tamaa asilia za kiutu (natural human inclinations), tunu za kibinadamu (human goods), na mapatano ya vikao yanayozalisha mikataba ya kijamii yanayozingatia kanuni ya wengi wasikilizwe (human convention). (Juan Carlos Riofrío Martínez-Villalba(2023:33-44)

Lakini bado, wanazuoni wanakubaliana kuwa kama itawezekana kufanya mchujo wa kiakili unaotuwezesha kupata kanuni za maadili kutokana na kanuni thabiti za maumbili ya binadamu, hiyo itakuwa ni njia bora zaidi, maana tutapata kanuni za maadili ya kudumu kwa njia hiyo.

Hili ni pendekezo kuhusu hoja ya kuzalisha haki asilia kutokana na sifa ziaozpatikana katika "muundo asilia wa kibinadamu." Tuone pendekezo hili kwa kina.

Muundo asilia wa binadamu kama chimbuko la haki

Hii ni hoja inayopendekeza kuvuna haki asilia kutokana na muundo asilia wa binadamu. Yaani "an argument for natural rights from natural human design". Hoja hii inao muundo ufuatao:
An argument for natural rights from natural human design:

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human flourishing. (Angus Brook, 2019)
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.
4. A moral duty to avoid morally wrong acts entails a right of others to be free from morally wrong acts, while a moral duty to pursue morally good acts entails a right of others to enjoy morally good acts
5. Thus we have a right to be free from morally wrong acts and a right to enjoy morally good acts.

However, the claim that, there are basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human flourishing, requires clarification.

The above argument is teleological. It defines the morally right in terms of the axiologically good. This axiology highlights a range of basic goods. According to Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi (2019:64-67), six points come into play in understanding these goods and the fundamental moral standard to which they give rise.

First, there are "states of affairs" that we almost all find attractive. If someone does not find these states of affairs attractive, we would judge that person deficient.

For example, to care nothing for the core constituents of one's life is a pathology. These states of affairs are basic goods.

Second, basic goods include knowledge, friendship, sexual union and the care of one's children, beauty, self-direction in choosing a path in life, harmony with divine forces, bodily integrity, play or leisure, and life itself the foundation of the basic goods. These basic goods are the familiar ends of daily activity.

We can also distinguish between reflexive and substantive basic goods. We realize reflexive basic goods in our choices and actions; friendship is an example. The substantive good of life, however, is independent of specific actions on our part.

Third, without these basic goods, we cannot flourish by fulfilling or actualizing our natural potentials. Indeed, without the good of life, we do not exist.

Thus, the basic goods are within us as the central and inter-related components of our well-being as persons and as communities.

Fourth, it is rational to pursue these goods and irrational to attack them. For example, if asked why one is doing such-and-such, it is rational to answer in terms of these goods. "I am acting to gain knowledge, or to help a friend, build a family, make something beautiful."

Perhaps one is using the wrong means to do so, but to pursue such an end is always rational. So, too, it is irrational to attack a basic good.

Such declarations as the following border on the senseless: "I am acting to gain false beliefs, or to hurt a friend, ruin a family, destroy a work of beauty."

Fifth, these goods are incommensurable. A basic good is incommensurable in that it does not have any common measure with another basic good such that the two goods can be rank ordered. It is a mistake to say that knowledge is of greater worth than friendship or, indeed, the reverse.

It is a mistake to say that self-determination is of greater worth than life or, indeed, the reverse.

Accordingly, we misunderstand the basic goods if we suppose that it is reasonable intentionally to attack or undermine a basic good to gain another.

Unlike instrumental and external goods, basic goods are internal to the person. One can put a price on a book, but one cannot buy the knowledge it might provide.

Knowledge is within the knower. One can buy someone's time, but one cannot buy a friend. Friendship is within the friends who share it.

One can buy sexual access, but to ask the price of authentic sexual union is to misunderstand its nature.

One can buy a beautiful object but not the appreciation of its beauty. Beauty is not simply within the beholder, but apart from its personal appropriation, it becomes simply a physical pattern.

Because basic goods are incommensurable, consequentialist arguments that the end justifies the means fail.

Thus, to answer the rhetorical question, "If the ends do not justify the means, then what does?" we should distinguish between external and internal means.

Regarding the former, only the end justifies the means. An external means serves to achieve an end and, once it does so, remains separate or at least distinct from that end.

A carpenter drills a nail into a wall and, having done so, returns the drill to a rack.

A physician uses a stethoscope to listen to a patient's heart and, having done so, replaces the instrument in a cabinet. A student tapes a poster on a wall. The tape is attached to the poster but remains distinct from it.

And an internal means helps bring about an end and, in doing so, becomes a part of it. A lie told to fabricate evidence becomes a part of the fabrication.

Violence to foster revolution becomes a part of a revolutionary structure. When terrorists win control, their terror is institutionalized.

Thus, regarding internal means, it is by no means clear that the end justifies the means. Such means are the ends in their coming to be.

Sixth, it is rational (a) to be open to all the basic goods and (b) to act together to realize them. Moral reasoning is neither the prisoner of psychological egoism nor limited to instrumental calculation. Reason is not the slave of the passions.

In exploring these six characteristics of basic goods, we have explored a natural law axiology.

It contrasts with a deontology that puts the right before the good; it blocks a maximizing consequentialism. Natural law looks to the basic goods as the ends of moral action that leads to the flourishing of the human person.

Finally, understanding the basic goods leads to an account of the common good, a pivotal aspect of natural law and its social ethics.

The common good is the whole range of material and social conditions that enables us to pursue the basic goods, together with the basic goods themselves.

The achievement of basic goods depends on both the material and the social environment. Knowledge depends on, among other things, the tools of communication.

It also depends on language acquisition and the transmission of culture. Jacques Maritain offers us a rich inventory of the material and social conditions for political society.

They include the collection of public commodities and services - the roads, ports, schools, etc., which the organization of common life presupposes; a sound fiscal condition of the state and its military power; the body of just laws, good customs and wise institutions, which provide the nation with its structure; the heritage of its great historical remembrances, its symbols and its glories, and its living traditions and cultural treasures.

These constituents of the common good need coordination, and their sum or sociological integration" is greater than a mere collection of parts. Given this integration, moreover, each person can participate in the common good.

These things all are, in a certain measure communicable and so revert to each member, helping him to perfect his life and liberty of person.

Hivyo basi, kwa sababu ya muundo asilia wa kibinadamu, ni hitimisho la kimantiki kuwa, haki asilia sio kitu kilichobuniwa na watu, bali ni stahiki tunazozaliwa nazo na zinazotuwezesha kunufaika na "matunda" ya hazina asilia zilizo ndani ya asili yetu.

Hata hivyo, kulingana na kitabu cha J. Caleb Clanton na Kraig Martin(2022:3-48), mchakato wa kuvuna "kanuni za maadili asilia" kutoka kwenye "kanuni za maumbile" unaweza kufuata njia moja kati ya njia kuu mbili.

Njia ya kwanza inaitwa "the Old Natural Law methodology" inapendekeza kuvuna "kanuni za maadili asilia" kutoka kwenye "kanuni za maumbile," moja kwa moja kwa kutumia mchujo wa kimantiki wenye hatua mbili, kwa sababu ya imani kuwa maadili na maumbile ni kama pande mbili za sarafu moja.

Njia hii inakumbana na pingamizi linadai kuwa, kwenye hoja sanifu, "dokezo linalotaja kanuni ya kimaumbile" haliwezi kuzaa "hitimisho linalotaja kanuni ya kimaadili," kwani, haiwezekani kuvuna machungwa kutoka kwenye mwembe.

Yaani, kwa mujibu wa kanuni za kuunda hoja sanifu, hitimisho linapaswa kuwa na taarifa ambazo zinapatikana kwenye madokezo yaliyolitangulia.

Ndio kusema kuwa, kama hitimisho linaongelea taarifa za kimaadili, lazima kuwepo na angalau dokezo moja lenye kubeba taarifa za kimaadili.

Kwa Kimombo pingamizi hili ni hoja inayoitwa, "No-Direct-Ought-From-Is-Argument," au "NDOFI Argument" kwa kifupi.

Njia ya pili kwa ajili ya kuchuja kanuni za maadili kutokana na kanuni za maumbile inaitwa "the New Natural Law Methodology."

Njia hii inapendekeza kuchuja "kanuni za maadili asilia" kutoka kwenye "kanuni za maumbile" kwa njia ya mzunguko unaoanzia kwenye tunu, badala ya kuanzia kwenye kanuni za maumbile.

Tunu hizo ni uhai, urazini wa kimatendo, mazoezi, afya, maarifa ya ukweli, ukamilifu wa mwili, utulivu wa mwili na roho, na orodha inaendelea.

Njia hii inasema kuwa tunu hizi zinagunduliwa bila ulazima wa kujua chochote kuhusu kanuni za maumbile zinazofundishwa katika masomo ya bayolojia, kemia, fizikia na kadhalika. Kwa mtu anayeamini katika misingi ya urazini timamu, pendekezo hili ni kikwazo.

Baada ya kusoma kitabu cha J. Caleb Clanton na Kraig Martin(2022:3-48), na marejeo aliyoyatumia, na kufananisha na maandiko ya Julius Nyerere, wanazuoni wa Tanzania tulihitimisha kuwa, tunapaswa kutumia njia zote mbili kuzailisha kanuni za maadili asilia kutokana na kanuni za maumbile.

Yaani, mchakato wetu ni mchujo wa kimantiki wenye hatua tatu zifuatazo: dekezo kuu (major premise) linatokana na "the Old Natural Law methodology" inatupatia , dokezo dogo (minor premise) linatokana na "the New Natural Law Methodology", na hatimaye, kutokana na madokezo yaya mawili, tunapata hitimisho linalotupa kanuni za maadili tunazozitaka, zikiwa na sura ya haki na majukumu.

Kama tukiongelea "the Tanzanian natural law Methodology," tunapata mchakato wa kimantiki ufuatao kwa ajili ya kuchuja kanuni za kimaadili kutoka kwenye kanuni za kimaumbile:

The process of deriving prescriptive norms from natural norms entails the following steps:

1. Identify essential attributes of human nature: Natural law posits universal principles governing human conduct, often tied to human nature, which includes intelligence, free will, natural inclinations which are instrumental in the pursuit of human flourishing.
2. Identify basic goods of human nature: Reason reveals fundamental goods, such as life, knowledge, rationality, sociability, and procreation, which must be simultaneously respected as a precondition for integral human flourishing.
3. Formulate prohibitive obligations: Natural law dictates that we must not harm these basic goods (e.g., do not kill, do not steal) and should promote them.
4. Shift to Rights: A right emerges as the flip side of a prohibitive obligations; if it's wrong to kill, I have a right to life; if it's wrong to steal, I have a right to property.
5. Universalize human rights norms through legislation: These rights are not granted by governments but are inherent to being human, making them universal, inalienable, and a standard against which positive (human-made) laws are formulated and judged.

We can now apply this procedure of deductively deriving natural law norms from each of the common natural inclinations, to the following set of natural inclinations and their inherent human goods to derive norms of behavior:

(1) Natural inclination to the good as opposed to an aversion to the evil; (2) Natural inclination to preserve life as opposed to an aversion to intentionally causing death of an innocent person; (3) Natural inclination to preserve health as opposed to an aversion to sickness; (4) Natural inclination to copulation as opposed to an aversion to pedication; (5) Natural inclination to marital sex as opposed to an aversion to non-marital sex; (6) Natural inclination to knowledge of truth as opposed to an aversion to ignorance; (7) Natural inclination to social life as opposed to an aversion to solitude; (8) Natural inclination to self-integration as opposed to an aversion to self-disintegration; (9) Natural inclination to ownership as opposed to an aversion to material poverty; (10) Natural inclination to technological prosperity as opposed to an aversion to technological poverty; (11) Natural inclination to personal self-determination as opposed to an aversion to subjugation; (12) Natural inclination to order as opposed to an aversion to chaos; (13) Natural inclination to peace as opposed to an aversion to violence; (14) Natural inclination to coherence as opposed to an aversion to incoherence; (15) Natural inclination to cultural richness as opposed to cultural primitivity; (16) Natural inclination to the common good as opposed to an aversion to institutional evil; and (17) Natural inclination to religious knowledge of truth as opposed to an aversion to religious ignorance.

From (1) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing the good and avoid the evil, we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties;

1. Descriptive premise: Every action that fulfils human nature is good, where, the term “good” merely describes “something that is oriented toward the realization of the inherent tendencies or potentialities of a human being”.
2. Prescriptive premise: Any action that is oriented toward the realization of the inherent tendencies or potentialities of a human being and it is not violative of any basic human good, then it ought to be pursued practically, and its opposite avoided.
3. Prescriptive conclusion: Therefore, action which is oriented toward the realization of the inherent tendencies or potentialities of a human being is good, where, the term “good” is normative since it refers to “something that fulfills the inherent tendencies or potentialities of a human being and that ought to be pursued practically, and its opposite avoided.”
4. Highlighting correlation between rights and duties: What we ought to do/avoid doing is a duty that entails a corresponding right to be enjoyed by others.
5. Highlighting natural rights from natural duties: Thus, we have a natural right to enjoy morally good acts or avoid morally bad acts.

In other words, the natural law theory of human rights and duties proposes an argument, which deductively derives moral norms from natural facts through the above shown three-step argument, which can be paraphrased as follows:

1. The essential nature of a given class of entities called humans tells the entities to pursue a certain set of goods and avoid a corresponding set of bads, where, this is a is a descriptive premise stating "what is naturally pursued" ;
2. If the essential nature of a given class of entities called humans tells the entities to pursue a certain set of goods and such a pursuit is not violative of any basic human good, then they ought to conduct themselves in a manner that allows them to pursue those goods and avoid a corresponding set of bads, where, this is a prescriptive premise stating "what ought to be pursued";
3. Thus, entities in a given class called humans ought to to conduct themselves in a manner that allows them to flourish by pursuing a certain set of goods and avoid a corresponding set of bads, where, this is a deductive normative conclusion based on one descriptive premise and one prescriptive premise.
4. Humans who ought to naturally do and avoid certain acts are duty-bearers responsible for performing natural duties which correspond to natural rights to be enjoyed by other fellow humans, the latter being called right-holders.
5. Thus, humans have a natural right to perform some acts which allow them to flourish by pursuing a certain set of goods and avoiding a corresponding set of bads.

From (2) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing preserve life and avoid intentionally causing death of an innocent person ; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.
4. Acts of abortion, murder, authanasia, and extrajudicial killings, intentionally cause death of innocent persons.
5. Thus, we have a duty to avoid abortion, murder, authanasia, and extrajudicial killings.
6. A duty to avoid abortion, murder, authanasia, and extrajudicial killings entails the conclusion that, innocent persons have a right to be free from abortion, murder, authanasia, and extrajudicial killings.
7. Thus, innocent persons have a right to be free from abortion, murder, authanasia, and extrajudicial killings.

From (3) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing the preservation of the basic good of health and avoid causing sickness; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.
4. Acts of depriving medical care, food, sleep, and drinking water, are gateways to sickness and poor health.
5. Thus, we have a duty to avoid depriving others of medical care, food, sleep, and drinking water.
6. The duty to avoid depriving others of medical care, food, sleep, and drinking water entails the right to medical care, food, sleep, and drinking water.
7. Thus, others have a right to medical care, food, sleep, and drinking water.

From (4) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing copulation and avoiding pedication; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.
4. Acts of pedication, that is anal sexual acts, both homo-affective anal sex and hetero-affective anal sex, are gateways to anal bodily disintegrity, in so far as anal disfunction leading to anal incontinence, hence an impaired digestive system, is concerned.
5. Thus, we have a duty to avoid pedication by pursuing copulation so as to preserve anal bodily integrity, in so far as anal function of preventing incontinence, hence facilitating a digestive system intengrity, is concerned.
6. The duty to avoid pedication by pursuing copulation entails the right to be free from pedication and the right to pursue copulation.
7. Thus, we have a right to be free from pedication and the right to pursue copulation, that is, freedom from anal sexual acts, namely, both homo-affective anal sex and hetero-affective anal sex.

From (5) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing mariral sex and avoiding non-marital sex; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong. That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.
4. Non-marital sexual acts such as adultery and fornication are contrary to human flourishing through sexual intercourse since it promotes human objectification and existential body-self fragmentation.
5. Therefore, non-marital sex is morally wrong.
6. Moral obligations entail moral rights.
7. Thus, we have a right to be free from non-marital sex.

From (6) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing knowledge of truth and avoiding ignorance; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

From (7) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing social life and avoiding solitude; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.
4. An individual needs his body and life to fulfill the duties of social life through daily corporeal functions such as sports, farming, driving a car, writing a letter, and attending sick people. .
5. Thus, we have a duty to promote sociability by cultivating sociable relations with others and enabling each other to act as useful members of society by avoiding amputation of the bodies of each others or killing others without their consent.
6. The duty to promote sociability entails the right to be free from unwarranted bodily amputation and killing by others without one's consent.
7. Thus, we have a right to be free from bodily amputation and killing by others without one's consent.

From (8) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing self-integration aand avoiding self-disintegration; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

From (9) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing ownership and avoiding material poverty; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

From (10) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing technological prosperity and avoiding technological poverty; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

From (11) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing personal self-determination and avoiding subjugation; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

From (12) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing order and avoiding chaos; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

From (13) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing consentual peace and avoiding coercive peace; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.
4. Consensual peace, as opposed coercive peace, is the tranquility of non-coercive order arising from intentional respect, protection, fulfillment and facilitation of human rights, based on a predefined standard of justice, in such a way that all members of society are subjects of social, economic and political benefits and burdens based on a free and informed consent.
5. This, we have a duty to avoid coercive peace
6. The duty to avoid coercive peace entails the right to be free from coercive peace.
7. Thus, we have a right to be free from coercive peace which entails the right to consensual peace.

From (14) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing coherence and avoiding incoherence; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

From (15) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing cultural richness as opposed to cultural primitivity; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

From (16) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing the common good and avoiding institutional evil; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

And from (17) Human persons are intelligent and volitional entities having a natural inclination to knowingly and willingly fulfill their potentials by pursuing religious knowledge of truth and avoiding religious ignorance; we have the following syllogistic derivation of natural rights and duties

1. Apart from their accidental attributes such as bodily height, weight, volume, sex, color, religion, tribe, and place of origin, which can change across time and space, all human persons are naturally designed as embodied centers of essential attributes such as intelligence, volition, and teleological inclinations which point to the practical pursuit of basic human goods, such as life, health, knowledge, family, freedom, and rationality, all of which are constitutive of integral human fulfillment, that is, the rounded fulfillment of all human beings in a harmonious community (Mellisa Moschella 2025:7).
2. Since it is the case that, humans experience integral flourishing by intelligently and willingly obeying their natural inclinations that require them to practically pursue basic human goods without harming any of the known basic goods, and avoid the contrary evils, then they ought to pursue these basic goods and avoid the contrary evils.
3. Thus, an act which intentionally undermines integral human flourishing, by harming any of the known basic goods, is morally wrong; meaning that, an act which promotes a basic good, and does not, in so doing, undermine integral human flourishing by intentionally attacking any other basic good is morally good (Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi 2019:67ff). That is, every intentional human act which is contrary to human flourishing is morally wrong.

VI. MATOKEO YA UTAFITI

Majibu kwa Swali la (1): Ni kweli kwamba viongozi wa TEC kwamba hawajui maana ya sheria wala umuhimu wake katika kuendesha nchi yenye dini nyingi?

Jibu: Sio kweli kwamba viongozi wa TEC kwamba hawajui maana ya sheria wala umuhimu wake katika kuendesha nchi yenye dini nyingi? Historia ya mchango wa Kanisa Katoliki katika mvuvumko wa sheria za dunia hii iko bayana.

Kanisa Katoliki linaamini kwamba lilianzishwa na Yesu Kristo mwenyewe, ambaye aliwapa mitume wake, hasa Petro, mamlaka ya kuongoza kanisa.

Petro anachukuliwa kuwa papa wa kwanza, na mamlaka yake ilipitishwa kwa warithi wake. Kanisa lilianza rasmi siku ya Pentekoste ya kwanza baada ya kifo cha Yesu, ambapo mitume walipokea Roho Mtakatifu na kuanza kuhubiri Injili.

Andiko linalotumika kuhalalisha Petro kuwa papa wa kwanza ni Mathayo 16:15-19. Hivyo, Kanisa Katoliki linaamini kwamba Petro alikuwa kiongozi wa mitume na kwamba mamlaka yake ilipitishwa kwa warithi wake, ambao ni mapapa.

Tangu wakati huo, Kanisa Katoliki hufanya kazi kama mtendaji wa kipekee, mwenye ushawishi, na asiye wa serikali katika mfumo wa kisheria wa kimataifa hasa kupitia Jimbo Kuu la Roma ambalo lina utu wa kisheria unaotambulika kimataifa.

Kama chombo huru, Jimbo Kuu la Roma hufanya kazi kama mamlaka ya maadili na mtendaji wa kidiplomasia anayeshiriki katika kuunda sheria za kimataifa na majadiliano ya haki za binadamu.

Katika muktadha wa mfumo wa sheria asilia za kidunia, Kanisa Katoliki hufanya kazi kama mlezi wa maadili, mwananadharia wa msingi, na sauti ya ukosoaji inayotetea uwepo wa ukweli halisi wa maadili unaopatikana kwa njia ya akili ya kibinadamu.

Ingawa mifumo ya kidunia mara nyingi huweka sheria kulingana na makubaliano ya watu binafsi au mikataba ya kijamii, Kanisa Katoliki linasisitiza kwamba sheria asilia ni utaratibu ambao haukuundwa na watu ambao hutumika kama kizio muhimu cha sheria zilizotungwa na binadamu, hasa kuhusu ulinzi wa haki za binadamu, maisha, na familia. Kanisa linatekeleza majukumu haya kwa njia kadhaa, zikiwemo:

Mpendekezaji wa Ukweli wa Maadili Huru Ulimwenguni: Kanisa linafundisha kwamba sheria ya asili "imeandikwa mioyoni mwa wanadamu" na Mungu na inaeleweka kwa akili ya kibinadamu, na sio kwa imani tu.

Katika jamii ya kidunia, Kanisa linatumia kanuni hii kusema kwamba ukweli fulani wa maadili—kama vile kukataza mauaji, wizi, au ulinzi wa familia—si mafundisho ya kidini tu bali ni ukweli wa kimantiki, wa ulimwengu wote unaowahusu watu wote, bila kujali imani.

Wakala wa "Akili ya Umma": Kanisa linasema kwamba mafundisho yake ya kijamii yanategemea akili ya binadamu inayoangaziwa na imani, na hivyo kuifanya sauti yake iwe muhimu katika jamii za kidunia, zenye wingi wa mitazamo ya kifalsafa, na za kidemokrasia.

Kanisa linajaribu kuhemea fikra zinazounga mkono sheria ya asili kutoka kwa watu wengine, likilenga kutumia njia hiyo kuishawishi jamii ya kidunia kwamba desturi fulani zinazoharibu "manufaa ya wote" zinapaswa kuepukwa.

Msingi wa Kihistoria na Kiakili: Kanisa linadumisha mbinu ya sheria ya asili ya "jadi", iliyojikita katika mafundisho ya Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), ambayo inapingana na nadharia za kisasa za sheria ya asili ya "kidunia" ambazo mara nyingi hupuuza dhana ya "mpangilio ulioumbwa".

Kanisa linashikilia kwamba sheria ya asili ni "ushiriki katika sheria ya milele" iliyoandikwa katika akili ya Mungu.

Kwa kuhifadhi mapokeo haya, Kanisa hufanya kazi kama daraja kati ya mawazo ya kisheria ya kimapokeo na ya kisasa, hasa kupitia taasisi kama vile Akademia za Kipapa.

Kwa hiyo, Kanisa Katoliki ambaye ni Mwalimu Mkuu wa sheria hapa duniani, haliwezi kuwa taasisi isiyojua maana wala umuhimu wa sheria, kama Rais Samia anavyotaka kuuaminisha umma.

Majibu kwa Swali la (2): Kama ukuta wa kikatiba inaopaswa kutenganisha "mambo ya kidini" na "mambo ya kisiasa", ni kama "chekecheo" ambalo linapaswa kutusaidia kutambua haki za taasisi za kidini dhidi ya taasisi za kisiasa ni zipi?

Jibu: Haki za taasisi za kidini dhidi ya taasisi za serikali ni hizi hapa:

• Haki ya kufundisha juu ya maarifa ya vitu asilia (existential beliefs), yaani imani kuhusu vitu vilivyopo na visivyokuwepo ulimwenguni, ikiwa vitu hivyo vinaweza kuonekana na kugusika.
• Haki ya kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya tunu asilia (evaluative beliefs), ikiwa tunu hizo zinaweza kugunduliwa bila ulazima wa kuangalia kwenye misahafu, kama vile heshima ya kiutu, uhai, afya, maarifa, ukweli, urazini, urafiki, utajiri, uhuru na ustawi.
• Na haki ya kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya maadili asilia (normative beliefs), ikiwa maadili hayo yanaweza kugunduliwa bila ulazima wa kuangalia kwenye misahafu, kama vile mfumo wa maadili asillia na haki za binadamu zilizomo kwenye Tangazo la Dunia Kuhusu Haki za Binadamu.
• Haki ya kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya vitu asilia (existential beliefs), yaani imani kuhusu vitu vilivyopo na visivyokuwepo ulimwenguni, hata kama uwepo wa vitu hivyo hauwezi kutambuliwa kwa njia ya kufikiri, kuona na kugusa, bali kwa kuanfalia kwenye misahafu au mapokeo ya kisekta, mfano mizimu, majini, malaika, mbingu, ahera, kuzimu, miungu na Mungu.
• Haki ya kufundisha kuhusu maarida ya tunu asilia (evaluative beliefs), hata kama ni lazima kuzigundua tunu hizo kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu, mfano ukiwa ni wokovu, uzima wa milele, ibada, sala, na upendo.
• Na haki ya kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya maadili asilia (normative beliefs), hata kama ni lazima kugundua maadili hayo kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu, mfano ukiwa ni taratibu za ibada, mavazi, na mapishi ya vyakula.

Haki hizi za kidini zinaambatana na majukumu ya taasisi za kidini yafuatayo:

• Jukumu la kidini la kujizuia kuitaka serikali kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya vitu asilia (existential beliefs), yaani imani kuhusu vitu vilivyopo na visivyokuwepo ulimwenguni, pale ambapo uwepo wa vitu hivyo hauwezi kutambuliwa kwa njia ya kufikiri, kuona na kugusa, bali kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu au mapokeo ya kisekta.
• Jukumu la kidini la kujizuia kuitaka serikali kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya tunu asilia (evaluative beliefs), pale ambapo ni lazima kuzigundua tunu hizo kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu, na sio vinginevyo.
• Na Jukumu la kidini la kujizuia kuitaka serikali kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya maadili asilia (normative beliefs), pale ambapo ni lazima kugundua maadili hayo kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu, na sio vinginevyo.

Majibu kwa Swali la (3): Kama ukuta wa kikatiba inaopaswa kutenganisha "mambo ya kidini" na "mambo ya kisiasa", ni kama "chekecheo" ambalo linapaswa kutusaidia kutambua haki za taasisi za kisiasa dhidi ya taasisi za kidini ni zipi?

Jibu: Haki za taasisi za kisiasa dhidi ya taasisi za kidini ni hizi hapa:

• Haki ya serikali kutolazimishwa na taasisi za kidini kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya vitu asilia (existential beliefs), yaani imani kuhusu vitu vilivyopo na visivyokuwepo ulimwenguni, pale ambapo uwepo wa vitu hivyo hauwezi kutambuliwa kwa njia ya kufikiri, kuona na kugusa, bali kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu au mapokeo ya kisekta.
• Haki ya serikali kutolazimishwa na taasisi za kidini kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya tunu asilia (evaluative beliefs) pale ambapo ni lazima kuzigundua tunu hizo kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu, na sio vinginevyo.
• Na haki ya serikali kutolazimishwa na taasisi za kidini kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya maadili asilia (normative beliefs) pale ambapo ni lazima kugundua maadili hayo kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu, na sio vinginevyo.

Hizi haki za kisiasa zinakwenda na majukumu ya kisiasa yafuatayo:

• Jukumu la kisiasa la kujizuia kuminya haki ya kidini ya kufundisha kuhusu imaarifa ya vitu asilia (existential beliefs), yaani imani kuhusu vitu vilivyopo na visivyokuwepo ulimwenguni, hata kama uwepo wa vitu hivyo lazima ugunfuliwe kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu, kwa sababu haviwezi kugunduliwa kwa kuona wala kugusa.
• Jukumu la kisiasa la kujizuia kuminya haki ya kidini ya kufundisha kuhusu maadili ya tunu asilia (evaluative beliefs) hata kama tunu hizo ni lazima zigunduliwe kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu.
• Jukumu la kisiasa la kujizuia kuminya haki ya kidini ya kufundisha kuhusu maarifa ya maadili asilia (normative beliefs)hata kama maadili hayo ni lazima yagunduliwe kwa kuangalia kwenye misahafu.

Majibu kwa Swali la (4): Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia ni yapi na yalibeba maudhui gani?

Jibu: Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia yalibeba maudhui yanayotokana na mfumo wa amri kumi za Mungu kama ukitumika pamoja na mfumo wa maadili asilia kama ifuatavyo:

Wakristo wapatao bilioni 2.5 duniani kote, sawa na 37% ya watu wote duniani, wanaunganishwa na mafundisho ya kidini ("religious doctrine") yanayoweza kufupishwa katika matamko matatu bila kubaki, kama ifuatavyo:

1. Maarifa kuhusu ukweli juu ya Mungu, Mazingira na Watu na uhusiano kati ya pande hizi tatu, kama yalivyofupishwa kwenye Kanuni za Imani kama vile Kanuni ya Imani ya Mitume, Kanuni ya Imani ya Athanazi, Kanuni ya Imani ya Nikea, na kadhalika (Credenda).
2. Malengo yanayopaswa kuombewa kwa Mungu, katika matumaini, ili mahusiano kati ya Mungu, Mazingira na Watu yaimarike, kama yalivyofupishwa kwenye Sala ya Baba Yetu (Speranda).
3. Na, majukumu yanayopaswa kutekelezwa ili kuonyesha upendo kwa vitendo, kwa ajili ya kudumisha mahusiano mema kati ya Mungu, Mazingira na Watu, kama yalivyofupishwa kwenye Amri Kumi za Mungu (Agenda).

Hivyo, Katekisimu zote za Ukristo zinaongelea na kufafanua mambo haya matatu, kwa kutumia lugha tofauti na mpangilio tofauti.

Ajenda ya Taasisi za dini ya Ukristo, likiwemo Kanisa Katoliki, yaani Amri Kumi za Mungu wa Biblia, inavyo vipengele vifuatavyo:

1. Mwabudu Mungu mmoja aliyeumba Ulimwengu na anayepigania heshima ya utu wa kila binadamu (Kutoka 20:2-8)
2. Fanya kazi kwa siku sita za wiki kwa kutumia mbinu za sayansi na tekinolojia mamboleo (Kutoka 20:9)
3. Pumzika kazi zote siku ya saba (Kutoka 20:10-11)
4. Waheshimu wazazi wako walioasisi familia yako (Kutoka 20:12)
5. Usiue mtu yeyote asiye na hatia wala kuua jina lake zuri kwa kumpaka matope (Kutoka 20:13)
6. Usizini na mke wa jirani yako yeyote, mahali popote na wakati wowote (Kutoka 20:14)
7. Usiibe mali wala kuiba mtu kwa kumteka na kumpoteza (Kutoka 20:15)
8. Usimdanganye mtu yeyote, mahali popote, wakati wowote, na kwa njia yoyote (Kutoka 20:16)
9. Usitamani mke wala kitu chochore cha jirani yako yeyote, mahali popote na wakati wowote (Kutoka 20:17)
10. Usitende uovu kama mbinu ya kufanikisha lengo jema (Kutoka 20:2-18)

Kiteolojia, hizi amri kumi zinataja majukumu ya Mkristo ambayo yanaweza kufupishwa katika majukumu makuu matatu (Mathayo 22:36-40).Yaani:

• Jukumu la Kumpenda Mungu, kwa maana kwamba Mungu anayo haki ya kupendwa;
• Jukumu la Kumpenda jirani, kwa maana kwamba kila jirani anayo haki ya kupendwa, ambayo ni haki iliyo kikonyo cha haki zote baki; na
• Jukumu la kuyapenda mazingira yaliyo rafiki kwa ustawi wa kila mtu na jirani yake; kwa maana kwamba mazingira yanayo haki ya kutunzwa.

Kumpenda mtu ni kufanya kitendo chochote kinachomsogeza karibu na mema ya kiutu au kumsukuma mbali na mabaya ya kiutu, na hivyo, kukuza na kuhami tunu za kiutu.

Majibu kwa Swali la (5): Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kweli yanavuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, kama Rais Samia alivyodokeza?

Jibu: Mfumo wa maadili ya kimisahafu, kwa sehemu kubwa, unakubaliana na mfumo wa maadili asilia, wenye kuongozwa na msukumo wa tamaa asilia ya kufukuzia mema na kukwela maovu.

Yaani, kuna “mlaliano,” yaani “intersection,” kati ya mfumo wa maadili asilia yanayotambuliwa na katiba ya nchi na mfumo wa maadili ya kimisahafu.

Kwa sehemu kubwa, “mlaliano” huo ndio unaunda maudhui ya matamko yote ya TEC. Hivyo, matamko haya yako ndani ya uzio wa mamlaka ya TEC na hayaruki ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa.

Hivyo malalamiko ya Rais Samia, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga, Elia Phaustine Kabote, na Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura ni malalamiko hewa.

Majibu kwa Swali la (6): Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kweli yanavuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaotenganisha mambo ya kidini yanayowahusu TEC na mambo ya kidini yanayozihusu taasisi baki za kidini, kama Rais Samia alivyodai?

Jibu: Kuna “mlaliano,” yaani “intersection,” kati ya mfumo wa maadili asilia yanayotambuliwa na katiba ya nchi na mifumo ya maadili ya kimisahafu inayotumiwa na dini mbalimbali.

Yaani, mfumo wa maadili asilia ni kigawe kidogo cha shirika kati ya dini na dini, madhehebu na madhehebu.

Ndio kusema kuwa, mfumo wa maadili asilia ni kama uzi unaounganisha shanga za tasbihi, ambapo kila punje inawakilisha madhehebu fulani ya kidini.

Kwa kuwa mfumo wa maadili asilia ndio unaunda kiini cha maudhui ya matamko yote ya TEC, matamko hayo hayapokonyi haki za kidini za dini baki. Badala yake yanaziimarisha na kuziunganisha.

Kwa ujumla, matamko ya TEC yako ndani ya uzio wa mamlaka ya TEC na hayaruki ukuta unaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa.

Hii maana yake ni kwamba, malalamiko ya Rais Samia, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga, Elia Phaustine Kabote, na Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura ni malalamiko hewa.

Majibu kwa Swali la (7): Je, kuna muumini yeyote wa Kanisa Katoliki ambaye anapaswa kukerwa na Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia, kiasi kwamba anastahili kuwasilisha malalamiko rasmi dhidi ya TEC mbele ya Balozi wa Papa, kama wanavyodai kina Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura?

Jibu: Kwa kuwa, matamko ya TEC yako ndani ya uzio wa mamlaka ya TEC na hayaruki ukuta unaotenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, hakuna muumini yeyote wa Kanisa Katoliki ambaye anapaswa kukerwa na Matamko nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia.

Majibu kwa Swali la (8): Ni kweli kwamba vijana waliodai kuandika barua ya malalamiko dhidi ya Padre Kitima kwenda kwa Papa ni "malofa" kwa maana ya “waasi waliosaliti sauti ya dhamiri zao na kugeuka bendera fuata upepo"?

Jibu: Ndio, ni "malofa" kwa maana ya “waasi waliosaliti sauti ya dhamiri zao na kugeuka bendera fuata upepo". Ni hivyo kwa kuwa, matamko ya TEC yako ndani ya uzio wa mamlaka ya TEC na hayaruki ukuta unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa. Na kwa sababu hii hakuna Mkristo anayesikiliza sauti ya dhamiri yake anapaswa kukerwa na Matamko hayo nane ya TEC yaliyokosolewa na Rais Samia.

Kwa hakika, napendekeza kwamba, hata watu wanaowatetea na watu waliowatuma ni maadui wa "imani ya Kikristo".

Na kuhusu tamko kwamba wahusika ni "malofa," tuanzie kwenye maana ta neno "lofa." Kwa mujibu wa Baba wa Taifa, Julius Nyerere, "lofa" ni mtu mzururaji, mtu asiye na kazi maalum, ba hivyo mtu anayejikomba kwa watu ili kupata mkate wake wa kila siku.

Mpaka sasa watuhumiwa hawajakanusha tuhuma dhidi yao kwa kusema wanafanya kazi gani na wapi. Kwa hiyo, tuhuma hii itanedelea kusimama mpaka watakapoleta ushahidi wa kukanusha.

Majibu kwa Swali la (9): Na, Je, ni nafuu gani ambayo kila pande katika mzozo huu, yaani serikali, Kanisa Katoliki na umma mpana, unastahili?

Jibu: Kwa upande wa serikali, Rais Samia, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga, Elia Phaustine Kabote, na Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura wanastahili kuliomba msamaha Kanisa Katoliki.

Kwa upande wa Kanisa katoliki, linawajibika kuwasamehe Rais Samia, Stanslaus Thobias Nyakunga, Elia Phaustine Kabote, na Ludovick Joseph Lwezaura, kwa kuwa hawajui walitendalo.

Lakini Kanisa katoliki lisiishie hapo. Linapaswa kukusanya "matamko manane ya TEC" aliyoyaongelea Rais Samia, kuyachapisha kama kitabu kimoja, na kuwasambazia waumini ili kuweka kumbukumbu sawa.

Kwa upande wa Bunge, tunapaswa kutunga sheria ya Bunge ili kunyoosha mambo na kuufanya ukweli wote juu ya mahusiano kati ya dini na dola udhihirike kisheria, badala ya kusinga mbele kwa kubahatisha kama tunavyofanya sasa hivi.

Na kwa upande wa AZAKI, tunapaswa kuanzisha elimu ya uraia (civic education) kwa ajili ya kufundisha watanzania kuhusu misingi ya maadili asilia, ambayo ndio kigawe kidogo cha shirika kati ya dini zote, kila dini ikiwa na upekee wake.

VII. HITIMISHO NA MAPENDEKEZO

Tamko hili limeandaliwa kwa ajili ya kujibu swali: Matamko Gani ya TEC yanayodaiwa kuvuka ukuta wa kikatiba unaopaswa kutenganisha mambo ya kidini na mambo ya kisiasa, na kama kweli yalivuka ukuta huo ni kwa kiasi gani yalivuka ukuta huo?

Baada ya utafiti wa kina, natoa jawabu kamilifu lenye kujibu swali hili kwa kuonyesha mambo matatu makuu.

Mosi, ingawa serikali ya jamhuri inayofuata mfumo wa haki na majukumu asilia lazima ifanye kazi bila kuegemea upande wowote wa kidini, na hivyo kuheshimu ukuta unaotenganisha dini na serikali, bado ukweli ufuatao unasimama:

1. Kwamba, waumini binafsi wakiongozwa na "Seti Kuu ya Sheria Zinazoratibu Malimwengu" au sheria ya maadili asilia inayotokana na sheria kuu tajwa, bado wako huru kuleta mafundishio ya imani zao kuhusu maasili asilia, kama yanavyofundishwa na viongozi wao wa kidini, kwenye uwanja wa siasa na kushawishi utungaji wa sera za serikali unaozingatia mafundisho haya;
2. Kwamba, viongozi wa kidini, huku wakiwa wanatekeleza wajibu wao wa kimaadili na kikatiba wa kutetea haki za asilia za wafuasi wao, kama wanavyozisoma kutoka kwenye "Seti Kuu ya Sheria Zinazoratibu Malimwengu" au sheria ya maadili asilia inayotokana na sheria kuu tajwa, wanalazimika kukosoa moja kwa moja sera za serikali zinazokiuka haki asilia za waumini wao na raia baki wanaoweza kuwa waumini wao katika siku za usoni;
3. Na kwamba, serikali, huku ikitekeleza wajibu wake wa kikatiba wa kutetea haki za asili za raia, huku ikiwa inazisoma kutoka kkwenye katiba ya nchi, inawajibika kukosoa moja kwa moja sera za kidini zinazokiuka haki hizo.

Pili, ni kweli kwamba, kupitia utekelezaji wa sera za utekaji, utesaji, mauaji ya raia, na uporaji wa rasilimali za Taifa, serikali imevunja haki asilia za raia; na hivyo kuwapa sababu viongozi wa dini, wakimwemo viongozi wa Kanisa Katoliki, kukosoa na kupinga sera hizo, kwa sababu ni haramu kwa mujibu wa sheria ya maadili asilia, inayotambuliwa kikatiba, na wanayopaswa kuitetea kwa mujibu wa mamlaka yao kama viongozi wa dini. Hivyo, tofauti na madai ya Rais Samia, matamko ya viongozi wa Kanisa Katoliki hayajavuka ukuta wa kikatiba na kisheria unaotenganisha mambo ya dini na mambo ya siasa.

Na tatu, ni hitimisho kwamba, majibu ya serikali kwa viongozi wa dini, wakimwemo viongozi wa Kanisa Katoliki, wanaokosoa sera za serikali zinazokiuka sheria ya maadili asilia, na hivyo kuvunja katiba ya nchi, ni majibu yanayolwepa hoja ya msingi, na kuongelea mambo yaliyo nje ya mjadala.

Hatimaye napendkeza kuwa, serikali inapaswa kuukubali ukweli unaotokana na utafiti hii na kujisahihisha, maana "Ukweli utatuweka huru" (Yohana 8:32).

VIII. MAREJEO MUHIMU

1. Angus Brook (2019), The Metaphysical Foundations of the Natural Law tradition (Presentation Paper) --Attached
2. Anver Emon, Matthew Levering na David Novak (2014), Natural Law: A Jewish, Christian and Islamic Trialogue (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press).
3. J. Caleb Clanton and Kraig Martin (2022), Nature and Command: On the Metaphysical Foundations of Morality (Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press),
4. JMT, Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania (1977), available onlie at National Audit Office website.
5. John Finnis (2011), Natural Law and Natural Rights (New York: Oxford University Press Inc)--Attached
6. John Stuart Mackenzie (2004), A Manual of Ethics (Kessinger Publishing).
7. Juan Carlos Riofrío Martínez-Villalba(2023), How to Deduce Human Rights From Natural Law and Other Disciplines, Ius Humani, 12.II:27-52, at 33-44 --Attached
8. Luca Di Donato and Elisa Grimi(2019), (Eds.), Metaphysics of Human Rights 1948-2018: On the Occasion of the 70th Anniversary of the UDHR (Delaware, USA: Vernon Art and Science)
9. Manuel G. Velasquez (2014:96-111), 7th Edition, Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases (London, UK: Pearson Education Ltd) --Attached
10. Matt Weisfeld(2008), The Object-Oriented Thought Process (Pearson Education)
11. Mellisa Moschella (2025), Ethics, politics and natural law principles for human flourishing (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press)--Attached
12. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part" (Prima Secundae), Question 90, Articles. 1 and 3.
13. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra Gentiles, Book 3, Chapter 114.
14. URT, Employment and Labour Relations Act No. 6 of 2004 (Chapter 366, RE 2023)
15. URT, Penal Code, Chapter 16 RE 2023
16. URT, Political Parties Act, Chapter 258, RE 2023
17. URT, Societies Act, Chapter 337 RE 2023.
18. Wayne Harry Lott(2016), Human Participation in the Eternal Law through the Natural Law in the Thought of Thomas Aquinas and Bernard Lonergan: Transpositions from a Classical to a Modern Mindset. A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Regis College and the Theology Department of the Toronto School of Theology In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael’s College--Attached
19. William S. Brewbaker III (2006), Thomas Aquinas and the Metaphysics of Law, Alabama Law Review, 58:575ff.
20. William S. Brewbaker III, What Is Christian Legal Thought, 2 J. Christian Legal Thought 5 (2012).Available at: What Is Christian Legal Thought

View attachment 3523157

Safi sana. Eti nimeiona leo. Trauma kali!

 

[baz kaiza]

Akili ndogo inapoogoza akili kubwa ni tatizo