Why the WARIOBA COMMISSION has failed the nation in many ways!

Rutashubanyuma

JF-Expert Member
Sep 24, 2010
219,470
911,174


Joseph Sinde Warioba cheering on the First President inaugurating a draft constitution.

I have just paid a visit to Tume ya Mabadiliko ya Katiba website and the shock that greeted me was the Rasimu ya Katiba was not there! So this contribution is constrained to what the Chairman of the Commission laid down as a synopsis in the said constitutional draft.

I have always been vocal on the misgivings I nursed on suitability and legitimacy of the constitutional process that was dictated before us by the executive. We know that JK regime never wanted a constitutional re-engineering and under public pressure they caved in a manner that left the regime in total control of the final product. And our bragging opposition led by Chadema also sold us when they agreed to be placated with a couple of “eating” positions in the Commission.


What are the real problems with this Warioba Commission?

1.0 Unconstitutionality of the whole process!

a) An act of parliament can not topple our constitutional order! (Read Mtikila v. A.G [CAT] decision on private/Independent candidates (supra).

b) Presidential appointments of commissioners were not transparent, competitive and participatory!

c) Legitimacy of the Commission can not be justified on past performance of the appointees!

d) Constitutional re-engineering process wrongfully vested on the institution of the presidency!

e) People participation geared for a window dressing!

2.0 The devil is always in the detail.

a) National values include transparency but it is unclear how constitutional institutions will be formed based on national values.

b) National values should include public participation in formation of government or in the alternative human rights be part of national values. The details on how public servants are appointed is a key matter in addressing the serious problem of poor leadership, endemic official graft, , integrity, nepotism, tribalism, cronyism and religious biases in the appointment of such servants.


c) It is ridiculous that in the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] Century the executive can continue enjoying a leeway of borrowing without seeking a fiat from the Augusta House. Let us stop them now!

d) Since it is a human right for citizens to take part in the building their own nation it makes no sense at all to limit presidential seekers to 40 years and the excuses chosen are based on experiences elsewhere and not from the proposed constitutional provisions on human rights. It is sufficient to state all the rights ushered to a voter ought to be protected to the any office seeker in the public. In other language is if we trust a teenager to vote then there is no reason we should mistrust her from seeking any office she is eligible to vote. It is time to demystify the presidency and not impose qualifications which are unconstitutional for a mere reason of being discriminative based on age and limited to just that office!


e) On rights to question presidential election again the proposed human rights on participation have been infringed. Stakeholders in any election are all Tanzanians. How do we limit electoral challenges only to those office seekers? It is pathetic, to put it mildly.

f) On presidential impeachment, the commission claims where we are is the right spot without answering the basic issues of infringements of the principles of natural justice on a charged president to be subjected to the same accuser playing the role of a witness, a prosecutor and a judge. It is despicable that the commission did not propose a second upper chamber of the House to spare us the injustices created by the existing constitution where the parliament is a judge of its own cause as far as the impeachment of the president. This is considered a grey area because the ccm dominated commissioners never contemplate a day a ccm president will face such a humiliation and this is why it is not given its due thought. If a second chamber is costly given there will be two more chambers to cater for individual governments of Tanganyika and Zanzibar then both of these chambers ought to form part of impeachment process on simple majority vote either to assent or dissent. If one of these lower Houses dissent then the process will be considered aborted in the favour of the sitting president who is under parliamentary investigations.


g) Forcing each constituent to elect opposite sexes is ridiculous. The underlying assumption there is faulty for being parochial and not strategic. It is tantamount to an admission that women will never challenge men’s domination in politics and they need constitutional protection which to say the least is an utter degradation of our women! Most women will prefer to fairly compete with men and if they are considered better than men be elected on their own right. My recommendation there is all constituents be offered to all without a gender consideration and women preferential list of not more than a third of all MPS be reserved for election in all constituents. A Kenyan constitutional case is instructive here.

h) MPs be free to answer to their conscience whether to abscond from dictatorial political parties without having to consider that if the initiation is from them then they will have to face voters in an election battle. We elect people not parties and I thought the dictatorship of parties together with their abuses of voters will come to a screeching halt but it seems bad habits die hard too. If a political party can not take away voters' rights by axing the MP then the MP is also ought not to be affected if he parts ways with his former bosses, simple and clear. After all, recalling constitutional clauses of MPs are there to check upon the impunity generated by wayward MPS why then restrict them even more in the hands of political parties?

i) There is a need to include all members of parliament and divisional councilors in sanctions against participating in executive positions or activities and responsibilities earmarked to the executive or judiciary and that will take care of Speaker and her Deputy playing roles in the Committee that recruits members of the electoral commission. How can we call it an independent election commission when it is corrupted by the judiciary through Chief Justice and the Speaker of the House? Are we in April Fools' day or what?

j) Speaking of the electoral commission, we will not judge it in its cover that if you rename it “independent commission” then it will be independent. We may be dumb but it is foolish to consider us that dumb. Constitutional assurances that local government, national security and the state House will have zero role to play are vital safeguards to ensure the legitimacy and the integrity of the election are above reproach. Active Chief justice and the Speaker or their sidekicks hobnobbing in the formation of the electoral commission taints the integrity of the election. For example the president of the Supreme Court is also the Chief Justice where electoral disputes will be settled as a Court of first and last resort. Some of the complaints may touch upon the competency of the appointees that the Chief justice had taken part in ratifying their appointments which the public may perceive as politically motivated.
Then how can the same Chief Justice be an impartial arbiter in such election disputes?

Another legal limb is constitutionality of separation of powers between the three arms of the government. Part of the legal limbos we find ourselves ensnared in is the lack of clear constitutional imperatives that debar members of one arm of the government from encroaching on the other arm of the government. A serious and committed Constitutional re-engineering commission would have been cognizant of that and deal this enslavement a lasting blow. But not getting the best services from Warioba Commission is no surprise because the formation of this commission was politically motivated to begin with.


k) Will continue after the gaps have been filled by accessing of the whole document.


3.0 Concluding remarks.
In Kiswahili we have a saying which says “Ndege njema huonekana tangia asubuhi” and here it suffices to conclude that once again the executive has won a day and common mwananchi has been sold out by all political parties. If you are smart trust neither of them.

Of all of the collossal errors of judgment committed by the Warioba Commission is to clothe aliens with constitutional powers to determine the legitimacy and integrity of our elections
through the appointments of the independent election commission hiring committee. I have never heard any country that mistrusts its own people to the degree this commission has insulted our collective intelligence.

Ironically, the current constitution recognizes that the sovereingty of this nation is in the hands of the people of Tanzania but a supposedly better constitution abrogates that constitutional power to aliens via a weird hiring committee of the so-called
"independent electoral commission" that is corrupted not only by foreigners but also the Speaker and the Chief Justice. Will there be a happy end to the official graft saga? I solemnly doubt that is the objective of this commission.

We have come a long way, but I did not expect a time will come when aliens will be considered a safer bet than common mwananchi. What is the commission fearing begs for at least a rebuttal.

 
Too late! ... but there's a case at the supreme court, I think.
 
When the President announced his Presidential Constitutional Review Commission that will preside over the process of writing a new Constitution, I said I will reserve my comments until I read the first draft of the new Constitution. I haven't read the draft yet.

Our current Constitution was made by a group of people who were not inclusive. The majority were excluded from political process of the making of the constitution.

It is unquestionable that constitutions made by commissions, without fully participation of people's representatives cannot make the government system inclusive.

In order to transform and make Tanzania a prosperous country, a Constituent Assembly was a matter of necessity for the making of the new Constitution.
 
Too late! ... but there's a case at the supreme court, I think.

There is no such thing as too late. A quest for a a better TZ will continue irrespective of what happens to this venal process. Remember less than 20 years ago Nyerere refused us a three government tier system of governance now where is he to stop us? Humans are mortal but human rights will survive humanistic frailties. Again Warioba may talk tough today but where will he be in ten to twenty years to come? A cold shallow grave awaits him and he will be forevermore silent just like Nyerere is, and TZ's aspirations will outlive him just like they outlived his mentor Nyerere.............Supreme Court in TZ? Give me a break..............or you mean High Court. Again, am not conversant with the gist of their complaints.........
 

For me, in particular, I share most of your sentiments but with one caveat: Any constitutional making process to have a legitimacy ought to be anchored in the current constitution. What is going on is unconstitutional; and when you see even retired Chief Justice is willing to lend legitimacy to an illegality, it baffles me to the rooftop of Mount Kilimanjaro. Can really a morsel of bread be enough to entice the retired Chief Justice to stoop this low? I knew greed is a root of all kinds of evil but now I am not sure how much I really know.................
 
I said from the very begining the whole process is ''fraud''.
I had no confidence with Warioba to oversee the transformation.
The way JK hijacked the issue was enough to raise a red flag

Today Mr President snubbed the inaugural to give the process legitimacy of openness without interference.

I concur with you that the devil is in the details.
Warioba did not say anything about citizenship amid the fear that he will spark the fire prematurely
 

Since the process is a fraud then we have a reason and a justification to continue agitating for a new constitutional dispensation..........This is a leaders' preference we have to continue seeking the just and righteous one for all particularly the led.......

AM also shocked to see leaders in the NGO are constitutionally barred from membership of the so called the commission of independent elections. If that scenario was followed in Kenya the incumbent Chief Justice of Kenya- Dr. Willy Mutunga- a doctorate holder of laws would not have been a Chief Justice. Why do we discriminate our citizens? Is it a sin to earn a living in civil society? I thought the impartiality of the Speaker, aliens and Chief Justice is of more concern to the integrity of the election than curtailing the rights of members of the civil society. Who are more partisan? No one can be a Speaker unless is sponsored by a political party. The same can be said of the Chief Justice. And of aliens whose interests will they be safeguarding and who will consider them for appointment? Are they really impartial or not partisan than all of us put together?
 
Talk of rubbish in a fancy language the whole article is pathetic, for starters what was wrong with the existing constitution?

You cant just demand of a new constitution if you have no clear sight of the amendments you want to see on the existing one.

trouble with you people is that you have politicized the whole issue instead of asking for clear goals and making right of what was wrong in the dysfunctional system of balance and checks. You had to add the unnecessary calls just to prove you can challenge the current administration that was so pathetic, so as this nonsense article.
 

I thought your broken English is pathetic! I just perspired to discern what you mean and I seriously doubt you understood what are the bone of contentions. If you had carefully read what I have averred you could have clearly seen where my heart lies. Be honest and do not accuse me of lacking a vision! Issues raised in this discourse have nothing to do with who is in power but rather whether laws have been broken to slake a quest for a new constitution....If you are capable- sincerely I doubt you are- to respond to that then we may commence in earnest to address your angst which totally seems out of place..................But if I argue with a fool of your calibre who will notice the difference, anyway?
 
The whole process is NULL AND VOID.
And where did they get the idea that we should have two MP from each constituency


1. Members elected from the same number of constituencies. 239
2. Special seats women members. 102
3. Members elected by the Zanzibar House of Representatives. 5
4. Attorney General. 1
5. Members appointed by the President. 10
Grand Total . 357
Have they ever thought of the running cost? Currently we have 239 selected MPS from their recommendation the number has to double!
I think we will also need another building to accommodate 700PS plus cars plus allowances.
Where are we going?
 
I will ignore the language jibe nor i wont comment on a your writing skills, apparently you seem to be proud of it. Lets just stick with the context of your arguments.
You cant just give an argument and decide it is unconstitutional unless the constitution clearly had directives on those matters should they arise and what entails the procedure of changes. Therefore where on the current constitution gives you that justification on what you described unconstitutional?

a. Yes an act of parliament can never go against a constitutional writing, do you even know the purpose of constitution?
the parliament can amend the constitution but it can never pass any acts that are not permitted by the
constitution meaning first they have to vote to amend the constitutional if the act is considered unconstitutional.

As for your points b,c and d that is just your own opinion, on the democratic deficit of the whole process; but was it unconstitutional? the answer is no, unless the procedure has been elaborated clearly under the current constitution.

e. there are reasons why people in a wider society participate in writing a new constitution, the main influence being
sectorial complaints and the best way to fill that gap is by including a wider participation. But a constitutional that
aimed to improve the governance and accountability is a matter of even one quango in some developed countries.
2.0 The devil is always in the detail.

a) National values include transparency but it is unclear how constitutional institutions will be formed based on national values.
What are the national values of Tanzania or of any other nation for that matter. In most cases the term would be translated as moral or ethical values these are just traditional thought accepted to guide the local way doing things. If you cant even describe democratic values and you call your self of the highest caliber then as a nation we have a problem with our scholars awareness of politics.

By the way the rest of what you described thereafter are democratic values, which some of them are fully flawed concepts na muda huo sina wakukosoa, apparently you don't even know what is the concept behind the human right act and it is usage nor that it exists in the current constitution but is never respected. Don't just use terminologies hovyohovyo ukadhani unatukoga wote.
 

On this one they seem to be cost conscious and possibly smart. What they have done they have confined themselves on the Union government and recommended that the union parliament will have 75 constituents. 20 from the Isles and 50 from the Mainland and the Union Prezzy will have a leeway of 5 to dole out to minions who are disabled where the formular remains cryptic
 

I understand your frustrations with everything constitutional but because you have candidly admitted ignorance for the first time; I honestly feel you deserve, a little of free constitutional tutorials from me!

But due to the time limitation, I will refer you to the Court of Appeal decision (supra) that was before the 7 justices chaired by the then Chief Justice Augustine Ramadhan -for some reason best known to himself, he has now developed an acute yet convenient amnesia of this decision that he wrote himself! - in throwing out Mtikila's pleas for the Court to strike out a number of Articles (2) in the Constitution for being unconstitutional regarding the issue of prohibition of the private/ independent candidates- the Court sought and secured succour in Articles of the same Constitution which empower the House to amend it! The Court went further and stated categorical that when the Court is called upon to strike out amendments carried out in the Constitution the only grounds it will consider are those which impugn the amending procedure laid down in the constitution.

Where for example- and the case at hand fits like a hand to a glove- constitutional matters that deal with Union matters ought to be decided by two third majority of both members from each side of the Isles and the Mainland. That is Mps from Isles must assent by two third majority and likewise mainland Mps do the same! What the Appeals Court stated is now the law of this nation which the House had willfully circumvented because the "Constitution amending procedure" that favoured CCM's stay in power would not have passed in the House as a result of CCM lacking those numbers as stipulated by the constitution. What we have is a travesty of justice to the people of Tanzania and my concern is when all our opposition representatives in the House also took part in tampering with those constitutional imperatives after they were bribed with a few slots in this unconstitutional commission headed by Warioba!

What we have now is Act No. 1 (Constitutional Review Act) of 2011 (special Bills) that the statutory method to pass it you need a quorum of at least 30 members of the House regardless of where they are hailing from between Mainland and Isles! In fact; under the House rules, all of those 30 MPs theoretically, may come from one side of the Union and still pass an act of parliament which intends to carry out fundamental and monumental sweeping constitutional reforms affecting both sides of the Union! If this is not unconstitutional then nothing can be and will ever be unconstitutional.

Asks yourself, part of the deal is to have two Houses of both Union government and the SMZ one to sit and pass the proposed constitution and then a referendum where are these constitutional aliens written in our constitution?

The rest of the issues you have raised require you to tread carefully on my early writings and with a little stretching of your brainpower the issues will become crystal clear.
 
just citing one example- the seven Justices of the Appeals Court in Mtikila case made it abundantly clear that the custodian of the will of Tanzanian people lies with the House then the begging question has to be why should the proposed constitution circumvent the House and create an alien Appointments Commission that goes against the law as stated by the highest court of the land?

On page 29 of the said ruling the Court cautioned that disregarding clear provisions of the constitution would create anarchy. Again the law behind the Warioba Commission is not in the constitution therefore it is anarchy.


However, we do not subscribe to his last sentence. The court can never


ever disregard the clear words of a provision of the Constitution. That will

cause anarchy.



On page 41, the Appeals Court made a concession that courts of law are not custodians of the will of the people but the House then ask yourself where will the Chief Justice and aliens be part of the Appointment committee of the proposed election commission?
We are definite that the Courts are not the custodian of the will of the

pe
ople. That is the property of elected Members of Parliament.
 
On powers to change or amend the current constitution this is what the Appeals Court said in the mtikila (supra) decision.


Quoted from page 24-27 of the A.G v. Rev. Christopher Mtikila civil Appeal no. 45 of 2009.





Quoted from page 27-29


 
On powers to change or amend the current constitution this is what the Appeals Court said in the mtikila (supra) decision.


Quoted from page 24-27 of the A.G v. Rev. Christopher Mtikila civil Appeal no. 45 of 2009.






it is obvious that the ordinary law behind the constitutional review was derived at the cost of the existing constitution and out of political expedience in a manner that will CCM in control of the amending of the existing constitution
 
On powers to change or amend the current constitution this is what the Appeals Court said in the mtikila (supra) decision.


Quoted from page 24-27 of the A.G v. Rev. Christopher Mtikila civil Appeal no. 45 of 2009.






Sidestepping the current constitution in order to appease parochial political interests has failed to clothe this constitutional amending processing with the legitimacy it desperately require..........
 
The Court of Appeal stated in the same ruling that the high Court has power to annul laws which offends clear provisions of the Constitution as in this case of the Warioba Commission:-

Read what they had to say:-


 
I am only emphasizing that the constitutional amending procedure well emanated in our constitution was not followed rendering the whole constitutional amending act passed by the parliament unconstitutional and so is the Warioba commission.
On my next discussion I will discuss selected issues on the proposed constitution and why it will not abate the major problems behind our socioeconomic stagnation.
 
The real reason why we need a new constitutional order it is because the current setup has failed to address major socioeconomic issues such official graft, massive poverty, illteracy and incurable diseases.

Here is my recommendation on how such a bad constitutional proposal can be made a better social contract for all of us. For purposes of widening the readership I will put them in Kiswahili as much as it is feasible:-

 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…