Rutashubanyuma
JF-Expert Member
- Sep 24, 2010
- 219,470
- 911,174
Upembuzi huu unaukubali uamuzi wa kumrudisha Mhe. Lema jumbani kuwa ni sahihi lakini unapinga baadhi ya sababu ambazo majaji walizitumia kufikisha hatma hiyo:-
Sababu mbili ambazo ninazikubali za kuufuta uamuzi wa kumtengua Lema ni hizi hapa:-
1) Sheria ya vielelezo vya ushahidi ilikiukwa na hivyo Mahakama isingeliweza kuthibitisha kama waomba shauri kweli walikuwa wapigakura wa jimbo la Arusha.
2) Madai haya yalipaswa kufunguliwa chini ya ibara 26 (2) ya katiba ambayo imetoa mwanya wa mashauri ya namna hii badala ya kutegemea tu kifungu cha 111 ( 1) cha sheria ya uchaguzi.
Hizi sababu mbili zilitosha kutengua matokeo tajwa.
Lakini waheshimiwa majaji walipokwenda mbali na kudai yafuatayo naona walijikaanga kwa mafuta yao wenyewe:-
1) Mgombea tu ndiye afungue mashitaka na wala siyo wapigakura kupinga matokeo ya uchaguzi.
Tatizo ni kuwa dhana nzima ya uwakilishi inapoteza maana yake. Wapigakura na wagombeaji lao ni moja na kutofautisha haki miliki ya matokeo kwa kuwatenga wapigakura kuwa hawahusiki na hivyo siyo waathirika na matokeo ya uchaguzi ni kinyume kabisa na dhana nzima ya maana ya demokrasia ya uwakilishi.
Kiongozi aliyepatikana kwa msingi wa kidemokrasia kaajiriwa na wapigakura. Sasa mahakama inaposema waajiri hawahusiki na matokeo ya usaili wao ni "absurd" kwa kuwaumbua na lugha ambayo wao wenyewe waliitumia.
2) Kutonukuu aya za hukumu ya Mgonja ambayo Mahakama ya Rufaa iliifuta!
Kutaja hukumu ya Mgonja na kuitengua (Kiujumla) bila ya kusema ni maeneo yapi ambayo wametofautiana nayo kwa kuyanukuu siyo sahihi kabisa. Ni haki yetu kujua ni maeneo gani ambayo hawakuridhika nayo kwa kuyanukuu na kutengua maeneo husika badala ya kuisaga yote kiujumla wake. The public has the right to know even that.......
3) Kutotathmini malalamiko ya wajibu rufani.
Hapa majaji walijikaanga kwa mafuta yao wenyewe....................
Hakuna mahali kwenye uamuzi huu ambapo walichunguza madai ya walalamikaji na kufanya haya mahitimisho kuwa wameyachimbua kutoka mifukoni mwao wenyewe...........
By the way......How did the Honourables Justices reached a verdict that the respondents' rights were not infringed while there was nowhere they investigated the respondents' claims?
My considered view is that the decision is a rightful one but some of the reasoning of the Justices are cockeyed...............difficu lt to swallow, really.
4) Mgongano wa wazi wa khoja za Majaji!
Tatizo hapo ni kuwa kama mahakama iliona hii kesi ya kupinga Ubunge wa lema ina mvuto mkubwa kwa jamii inakuwaje waione haina masilahi kwa jamii?
Hivi kweli nafasi ya nani anakwenda kutuwakilisha bungeni siyo suala ambalo lina masilahi makubwa kwa umma?
Majaji walipaswa wafafanua sana kwenye eneo hili na mahitimisho yao yanaonekana kutoa maamuzi ambayo yanahoji kama walikuwa kweli hawana mashinikizo ya kisiasa kutoka pande zote mbili husika na huu mgogoro.
Sababu mbili ambazo ninazikubali za kuufuta uamuzi wa kumtengua Lema ni hizi hapa:-
1) Sheria ya vielelezo vya ushahidi ilikiukwa na hivyo Mahakama isingeliweza kuthibitisha kama waomba shauri kweli walikuwa wapigakura wa jimbo la Arusha.
2) Madai haya yalipaswa kufunguliwa chini ya ibara 26 (2) ya katiba ambayo imetoa mwanya wa mashauri ya namna hii badala ya kutegemea tu kifungu cha 111 ( 1) cha sheria ya uchaguzi.
Second the petition was not brought under Article 26(2) of the Constitution which permits any person to bring a public interest litigation. The Article provides:-
26(2) Every person is entitled, subject to the procedure provided for by the law, to institute proceedings for the protection of the constitution and legality.
Hizi sababu mbili zilitosha kutengua matokeo tajwa.
Lakini waheshimiwa majaji walipokwenda mbali na kudai yafuatayo naona walijikaanga kwa mafuta yao wenyewe:-
1) Mgombea tu ndiye afungue mashitaka na wala siyo wapigakura kupinga matokeo ya uchaguzi.
Since an election petition is not a public interest litigation we do not read the section to have done away with the rule of locus standi. We think in our view, section 111(1)(a) of the Act give rights to registered voter whose rights to vote have been interfered with or violated. In case violation effects the candidate it is for the candidate to challenge the election because his rights were violated. To give the section a broader interpretation that he has an absolute right to petition even where his rights were not interfered with is to defeat the well established principle of law of locus standi and indeed it does not sound well. We are not prepared to do so
Tatizo ni kuwa dhana nzima ya uwakilishi inapoteza maana yake. Wapigakura na wagombeaji lao ni moja na kutofautisha haki miliki ya matokeo kwa kuwatenga wapigakura kuwa hawahusiki na hivyo siyo waathirika na matokeo ya uchaguzi ni kinyume kabisa na dhana nzima ya maana ya demokrasia ya uwakilishi.
Kiongozi aliyepatikana kwa msingi wa kidemokrasia kaajiriwa na wapigakura. Sasa mahakama inaposema waajiri hawahusiki na matokeo ya usaili wao ni "absurd" kwa kuwaumbua na lugha ambayo wao wenyewe waliitumia.
2) Kutonukuu aya za hukumu ya Mgonja ambayo Mahakama ya Rufaa iliifuta!
Kutaja hukumu ya Mgonja na kuitengua (Kiujumla) bila ya kusema ni maeneo yapi ambayo wametofautiana nayo kwa kuyanukuu siyo sahihi kabisa. Ni haki yetu kujua ni maeneo gani ambayo hawakuridhika nayo kwa kuyanukuu na kutengua maeneo husika badala ya kuisaga yote kiujumla wake. The public has the right to know even that.......
3) Kutotathmini malalamiko ya wajibu rufani.
In our case the issue for consideration and decision is whether or not a registered voter under section 111(1)(a) of the Act has an absolute right to challenge the election result even where his rights were not infringed.
Hapa majaji walijikaanga kwa mafuta yao wenyewe....................
Hakuna mahali kwenye uamuzi huu ambapo walichunguza madai ya walalamikaji na kufanya haya mahitimisho kuwa wameyachimbua kutoka mifukoni mwao wenyewe...........
By the way......How did the Honourables Justices reached a verdict that the respondents' rights were not infringed while there was nowhere they investigated the respondents' claims?
My considered view is that the decision is a rightful one but some of the reasoning of the Justices are cockeyed...............difficu lt to swallow, really.
4) Mgongano wa wazi wa khoja za Majaji!
First, we wish to point out that election petitions are not in our view public interest litigation though they are matters of great public importance. This is because the relief sought would not benefit the entire society as a whole.
Tatizo hapo ni kuwa kama mahakama iliona hii kesi ya kupinga Ubunge wa lema ina mvuto mkubwa kwa jamii inakuwaje waione haina masilahi kwa jamii?
Hivi kweli nafasi ya nani anakwenda kutuwakilisha bungeni siyo suala ambalo lina masilahi makubwa kwa umma?
Majaji walipaswa wafafanua sana kwenye eneo hili na mahitimisho yao yanaonekana kutoa maamuzi ambayo yanahoji kama walikuwa kweli hawana mashinikizo ya kisiasa kutoka pande zote mbili husika na huu mgogoro.