figganigga
JF-Expert Member
- Oct 17, 2010
- 25,492
- 54,895
Dar es Salaam. The proposed constitution if passed during a referendum next year, will establish about 12 or more commissions and other government institutions, which together will heavily cost taxpayers in establishing and running them. Ironically, the same document has left out a big institution the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Bureau (PCCB). However, even the final Draft Constitution did not enshrine in it a particular chapter, part or even any Article on PCCB. It was, however, well understood that the rationale behind the omission was intentional. An anti-corruption law, which established the PCCB is not a Union issue. Thus, each side of Union government has to fight against corruption on its own modality.
No doubt that if the Constituent Assembly (CA) approved a three-government Union structure as it was proposed by the erstwhile Constitutional Review Commission (CRC) and, therefore, allow the formation of a Tanganyika government, PCCB would have been a constitutional institution in Tanganyikas constitution among other institutions. Unfortunately, that did not happen and thus we anticipated the PCCB to be given a special constitutional status in the proposed constitution, which basically is a bi-constitutional basic law on both Union and Tanganyika affairs.
PCCB is a government watchdog against corruption established through an Act of Parliament. The current legal status of PCCB is a development of many decades since the colonial era until in 2007, when the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Act 2007 was enacted. This is the law, which has established now a giant institution, which has its legs almost in each district in Tanzania Mainland, its mission being to net all corrupt individuals and other embezzlers, who cost us dearly.
But why was PCCB not given constitutional recognition as many other government institutions were treated? This is a question I want to discuss and provoke the general public to question the integrity of the CA in sidelining PCCB, when they were proposing a new constitution. The drafting committee under the chairmanship of Andrew Chenge just mentioned corruption in Article 249 of the proposed constitution, where it states: 249(1) Kwa madhumuni ya kudhibiti rushwa, kutakuwa na chombo ambacho kitakuwa na jukumu la kuzuia na kupambana na rushwa. (2) Bunge litatunga sheria itakayoweka masharti kuhusu muundo, majukumu na mamlaka ya chombo kilichorejewa katika ibara ndogo ya (1).
This can be translated as: (1) For the purposes of containing corruption, there shall be established an institution that shall have the responsibility of preventing and combating corruption. (2) The Parliament shall enact a law, which shall provide for the structure, the responsibilities and the powers of such an institution referred in Sub-Article (1).
Taking into account the gravity of corruption in this country and the way the CA has provided it in the proposed constitution, a document which might be a permanent basic law of this country for many decades to come, you can see how the CA, which was mainly dominated by members from the ruling party, did not give the anti-corruption issue due weight.
The CA has taken corruption lightly that it does not undermine peoples welfare and development in general. Its true that all constitutions that have existed in this country since Mwalimu Julius Nyereres era to date did not make corruption a constitutional issue, but times have drastically changed. Now corruption is a top national agenda.
The CA gave prominent space in the proposed constitution to many various institutions and commissions; why did it not do the same with PCCB? How do we compare the role of the director general of PCCB with that of the Deputy Attorney General and Director of Public Prosecutions, which are constitutionally recognised even in the proposed constitution? While the DPP is a department under the Attorney General Office, the director general of PCCB leads and manages such a big institution with its wider network over the whole country. We all understand that the AG and DPP are not union institutions, but have been given constitutional status vide the legislation, which amended the current constitution of 1977.
The same wisdom that led Chenges drafting committee to give many other institutions and offices constitutional status, the same was supposed to lead or reveal to them a significant role PCCB plays in saving this nation from grand corruption that not only puts millions of Tanzanians into poverty, but also threatens peace and stability of this nation. Leaving PCCB out of the constitutional framework means nothing more than telling us in a clear voice that our politicians in the ruling party are less concerned with the problem of corruption because to them it is capital politically for ascending into power.
If CA members would have contemplated the statements of Mwalimu on corruption, they would not have dared to take corruption as lightly as they did. We all know how Nyerere hated corruption.
He hated corruption even before becoming the president of Tanganyika and then Tanzania. On May 17, 1960, while contributing to the National Assembly during a budget session, Mwalimu said this on corruption: Now sir, I think I would be less than honest if I said that all is well, because it is not. There is corruption. Now, sir, I think corruption must be treated with ruthlessness because I believe myself corruption and bribery is a greater enemy to the welfare of a people in peace time than war. I believe myself corruption in a country should be treated in almost the same way as you treat treason (Nyerere in Freedom and Unity).
Later on, Nyerere added corruption as fourth enemy among the first well known three enemies - ignorance, diseases and poverty. Corruption being the fourth enemy, which unfortunately has never been addressed properly, may in the future cause sectarian violence, which will pose a real threat to the stability and tranquility of this country. The seriousness of fighting against corruption both petty and grand should be seen through PCCB.
It doesnt make any sense to reasonable and people of integrity why PCCB was ignored and its chief executive officer sidelined in the proposed constitution. Only one thing is obvious. People who proposed this new document or called for the proposed constitution were people of less integrity, who do not care for the welfare of poor people of this country who are suffering under the scourge of corruption. Mia
Source:thecitizen
No doubt that if the Constituent Assembly (CA) approved a three-government Union structure as it was proposed by the erstwhile Constitutional Review Commission (CRC) and, therefore, allow the formation of a Tanganyika government, PCCB would have been a constitutional institution in Tanganyikas constitution among other institutions. Unfortunately, that did not happen and thus we anticipated the PCCB to be given a special constitutional status in the proposed constitution, which basically is a bi-constitutional basic law on both Union and Tanganyika affairs.
PCCB is a government watchdog against corruption established through an Act of Parliament. The current legal status of PCCB is a development of many decades since the colonial era until in 2007, when the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Act 2007 was enacted. This is the law, which has established now a giant institution, which has its legs almost in each district in Tanzania Mainland, its mission being to net all corrupt individuals and other embezzlers, who cost us dearly.
But why was PCCB not given constitutional recognition as many other government institutions were treated? This is a question I want to discuss and provoke the general public to question the integrity of the CA in sidelining PCCB, when they were proposing a new constitution. The drafting committee under the chairmanship of Andrew Chenge just mentioned corruption in Article 249 of the proposed constitution, where it states: 249(1) Kwa madhumuni ya kudhibiti rushwa, kutakuwa na chombo ambacho kitakuwa na jukumu la kuzuia na kupambana na rushwa. (2) Bunge litatunga sheria itakayoweka masharti kuhusu muundo, majukumu na mamlaka ya chombo kilichorejewa katika ibara ndogo ya (1).
This can be translated as: (1) For the purposes of containing corruption, there shall be established an institution that shall have the responsibility of preventing and combating corruption. (2) The Parliament shall enact a law, which shall provide for the structure, the responsibilities and the powers of such an institution referred in Sub-Article (1).
Taking into account the gravity of corruption in this country and the way the CA has provided it in the proposed constitution, a document which might be a permanent basic law of this country for many decades to come, you can see how the CA, which was mainly dominated by members from the ruling party, did not give the anti-corruption issue due weight.
The CA has taken corruption lightly that it does not undermine peoples welfare and development in general. Its true that all constitutions that have existed in this country since Mwalimu Julius Nyereres era to date did not make corruption a constitutional issue, but times have drastically changed. Now corruption is a top national agenda.
The CA gave prominent space in the proposed constitution to many various institutions and commissions; why did it not do the same with PCCB? How do we compare the role of the director general of PCCB with that of the Deputy Attorney General and Director of Public Prosecutions, which are constitutionally recognised even in the proposed constitution? While the DPP is a department under the Attorney General Office, the director general of PCCB leads and manages such a big institution with its wider network over the whole country. We all understand that the AG and DPP are not union institutions, but have been given constitutional status vide the legislation, which amended the current constitution of 1977.
The same wisdom that led Chenges drafting committee to give many other institutions and offices constitutional status, the same was supposed to lead or reveal to them a significant role PCCB plays in saving this nation from grand corruption that not only puts millions of Tanzanians into poverty, but also threatens peace and stability of this nation. Leaving PCCB out of the constitutional framework means nothing more than telling us in a clear voice that our politicians in the ruling party are less concerned with the problem of corruption because to them it is capital politically for ascending into power.
If CA members would have contemplated the statements of Mwalimu on corruption, they would not have dared to take corruption as lightly as they did. We all know how Nyerere hated corruption.
He hated corruption even before becoming the president of Tanganyika and then Tanzania. On May 17, 1960, while contributing to the National Assembly during a budget session, Mwalimu said this on corruption: Now sir, I think I would be less than honest if I said that all is well, because it is not. There is corruption. Now, sir, I think corruption must be treated with ruthlessness because I believe myself corruption and bribery is a greater enemy to the welfare of a people in peace time than war. I believe myself corruption in a country should be treated in almost the same way as you treat treason (Nyerere in Freedom and Unity).
Later on, Nyerere added corruption as fourth enemy among the first well known three enemies - ignorance, diseases and poverty. Corruption being the fourth enemy, which unfortunately has never been addressed properly, may in the future cause sectarian violence, which will pose a real threat to the stability and tranquility of this country. The seriousness of fighting against corruption both petty and grand should be seen through PCCB.
It doesnt make any sense to reasonable and people of integrity why PCCB was ignored and its chief executive officer sidelined in the proposed constitution. Only one thing is obvious. People who proposed this new document or called for the proposed constitution were people of less integrity, who do not care for the welfare of poor people of this country who are suffering under the scourge of corruption. Mia
Source:thecitizen