Familia ya Rais Magufuli mkiliachia hili jambo lipite bila ya kumburuza mahakamani Kabendera itakuwa ni usaliti wa karne!

Familia ya Rais Magufuli mkiliachia hili jambo lipite bila ya kumburuza mahakamani Kabendera itakuwa ni usaliti wa karne!

Kiranga said:
Hawawezi kumpeleka mahakamani kwa sababu wanaogopa madudu yatakayoibuka kwenye cross examination.

Samia ataitwa kutoa ushahidi kama kweli Magufuli alitaka kumbaka mpaka Samia akataka kujiuzulu u Makamu wa Rais.

Samia hayuko tayari kuwa shahidi kwenye kesi hiyo.
Click to expand...
Eeeeh Magu alitaka kumbaka mama tena??? mbona mna siri nyingi hivi duh!
 
Nyani Ngabu said:
Familia haiwajibiki kuthibitisha hakuua.

Mwenye wajibu wa kuthibitisha ni anayetoa tuhuma.

Kuna watu bado mna ujinga wa kutisha na kusikitisha sana.
Click to expand...
Pamoja na kuwa na ujinga wa kutisha,kwa mjibu wa bandiko lako umewashauri wanafamilia wasiliache jambo kupita kama upepo pasipo kumburuza mwandishi mahakamani,kwa maana nyingine wanafamilia ndio watakao simama mahakamani kama walalamikaji wakilalamika kukashifiwa au kudhalilishwa kwa baba yao mzazi na mwandishi wa habari ambaye atakuwa ndiye mtuhumiwa.

Na kwa mjibu wa mahakama zetu jukumu la kuthibitisha madai au jinai ni la pande zote mbili upande wa mlalamiji na upande wa mtuhumiwa.

Upande wa mlalamikaji ndio huwa unatangulia kuthibitisha kwa vielelezo au kwa ushahidi wa mdomo pasipo kuacha shaka lolote ni vipi amedhuliwa na mtuhumiwa.

Na kwa upande wa mtuhumiwa nako ni hivyohivyo ni lazima athibitishe kwa vielelezo au kwa ushahidi wa mdomo pasipo kuacha shaka lolote kujibu tuhuma zake.

Kwa mjibu wa bandiko lako moja kwa moja walalamikaji ni wanafamilia ya Magufuli ambao umewataka wamburuze mahakamani mwandishi wa habari kama mtuhumiwa akathibitishe tuhuma za mauaji yaliofanywa na baba yao.

Kwa hiyo wanafamilia kama walalamikaji ni lazima wakathibitishe malalamiko yao mahakamani,kwa kuwa mlalamikaji ni lazima atatoa vielelezo vyake vinavyothibitisha kuwa Magufuli aliua na wao ni lazima watoe vielelezo vinavyothibitisha kuwa Magufuli hakuua kama ambavyo angeweza kufanya Magufuli mwenyewe kama angekuwa hai ambapo huwezi kujua pengine angeweza kukiri tuhuma zake au kukanusha.

Ila kama kuna mahakama ambayo kisheria mlalamikaji hatakiwi kuthibitisha malalamiko yake unaweza utanijuza.
 
Tukundane said:
Pamoja na kuwa na ujinga wa kutisha,kwa mjibu wa bandiko lako umewashauri wanafamilia wasiliache jambo kupita kama upepo pasipo kumburuza mwandishi mahakamani,kwa maana nyingine wanafamilia ndio watakao simama mahakamani kama walalamikaji wakilalamika kukashifiwa au kudhalilishwa kwa baba yao mzazi na mwandishi wa habari ambaye atakuwa ndiye mtuhumiwa.

Na kwa mjibu wa mahakama zetu jukumu la kuthibitisha madai au jinai ni la pande zote mbili upande wa mlalamiji na upande wa mtuhumiwa.

Upande wa mlalamikaji ndio huwa unatangulia kuthibitisha kwa vielelezo au kwa ushahidi wa mdomo pasipo kuacha shaka lolote ni vipi amedhuliwa na mtuhumiwa.

Na kwa upande wa mtuhumiwa nako ni hivyohivyo ni lazima athibitishe kwa vielelezo au kwa ushahidi wa mdomo pasipo kuacha shaka lolote kujibu tuhuma zake.

Kwa mjibu wa bandiko lako moja kwa moja walalamikaji ni wanafamilia ya Magufuli ambao umewataka wamburuze mahakamani mwandishi wa habari kama mtuhumiwa akathibitishe tuhuma za mauaji yaliofanywa na baba yao.

Kwa hiyo wanafamilia kama walalamikaji ni lazima wakathibitishe malalamiko yao mahakamani,kwa kuwa mlalamikaji ni lazima atatoa vielelezo vyake vinavyothibitisha kuwa Magufuli aliua na wao ni lazima watoe vielelezo vinavyothibitisha kuwa Magufuli hakuua kama ambavyo angeweza kufanya Magufuli mwenyewe kama angekuwa hai ambapo huwezi kujua pengine angeweza kukiri tuhuma zake au kukanusha.

Ila kama kuna mahakama ambayo kisheria mlalamikaji hatakiwi kuthibitisha malalamiko yake unaweza utanijuza.
Click to expand...
Mahakama zetu jukumu la kuthibitisha ni la pande zote mbili? How?

Kabendera kasema Magufuli alimuua Ben.

Familia ya Magufuli inawajibika kuthibitisha nini hapo zaidi ya kusema hizo tuhuma si za kweli?
 
Nyani Ngabu said:
Katika madai yote dhidi ya Rais Magufuli, hili dai la huyu mwandishi Eric Kabdendera, kuwa Rais Magufuli alimuua Ben Saanane kwa kumpiga risasi ya kichwa hapo Ikulu [nasadiki ni Ikulu ya Dar], ni dai kubwa na zito sana.

Ni kashfa kubwa sana. Kwa mtu tu wa kawaida, kutuhumiwa kuua mtu mwenzio si jambo dogo. Seuze Rais wa nchi?

Wengi wetu kwa sasa tutakuwa tumeshaiona hii excerpt ya hicho kitabu:
View attachment 3190381

Napata wakati mgumu sana kuamini kuwa Rais Magufuli anaweza kumuua kijana wa Kitanzania, ambaye ni mtu mdogo sana, in the grand scheme of things, kwa mikono yake mwenyewe tena kwenye nyumba ya wananchi, Ikulu.

Tumeshawazoea akina Lissu na wenzake kuropoka na kutoa tuhuma za ajabu ajabu bila kutoa wala kuonyesha ushahidi wowote ule zaidi ya kusema ‘nimeambiwa’ au ‘niliambiwa’.

Lissu keshawahi kusema mara kadhaa kuwa baada ya Magufuli kufariki, eti nyumbani kwake yalikutwa mabulungutu ya mahela, dola za Kimarekani, kwenye mamilioni.

Bila ushahidi wowote ule zaidi ya ‘kuambiwa’, tuhuma hizo zinabaki kuwa ni porojo tu za Lissu.

Na ndo maana pengine hata familia ya Rais Magufuli haijawahi kusema wala kufanya chochote dhidi ya madai hayo.

Ila hili la Magufuli kutuhumiwa kuwa ni cold-blooded murderer, si la kawaida na halipaswi kupuuziwa.

If not true, what Kabendera did is libelous and should sued.

Mimi si mtaalamu wa sheria za Tanzania. Lakini naamini sheria za libel zipo.

Licha ya kwamba Rais Magufuli alikuwa ni public figure, kuna vitu huwezi kuvisema dhidi yake bila ushahidi.

Tuhuma za mauaji kwa mtu yeyote yule, humtia doa kubwa sana kwenye jamii, mtu huyo.

Majuzi hapa tumeona kituo cha televisheni cha Marekani, ABC, kilikubali kumlipa Rais Trump $15 milioni kwa sababu mmoja wa watangazaji wake alisema kimakosa kuwa Trump alipatikana na hatia ya ubakaji wakati si kweli.

Kubaka ni moja ya makosa yanayompa mtu doa la maisha.

Uuaji, kwangu mimi, ni kosa lililo juu ya ubakaji.

Sasa huyu jamaa Kabendera anakuja na tuhuma nzito namna hiyo tena kwa Rais mzima bila hata ushahidi wowote ule zaidi ya kusema kaambiwa na vyanzo vyake.

Hapana kwa kweli. Tuhuma kama hizo ni nzito sana kuachwa hivi hivi tu, la sivyo kama ni za ukweli.

Familia ya Rais Magufuli ikimwacha huyu jamaa bila kumburuza mahakani akatoe testimony yake huko under the penalty of perjury, itakuwa ni usaliti mkubwa sana kuwahi tokea nchini.

Yaani kabisa Rais Magufuli ampige risasi ya/za kichwa huyo Ben Saanane hapo Ikulu, halafu watu wa Magufuli waichukue maiti yake na kwenda kuitupa kwenye moto Rufiji?

Vigumu sana kuamini hilo.

Familia ya Rais Magufuli ni lazima ichore mstari mchangani na kuchukua hatua.

La sivyo, mtatufanya watu kama mimi tuamini kuwa yanayosemwa ni ya kweli.
Click to expand...
Kama hutaki kuwa Magufuli aliua, basi tutajie aliyeua? Au basi ni wewe?
 
Nyani Ngabu said:
Katika madai yote dhidi ya Rais Magufuli, hili dai la huyu mwandishi Eric Kabdendera, kuwa Rais Magufuli alimuua Ben Saanane kwa kumpiga risasi ya kichwa hapo Ikulu [nasadiki ni Ikulu ya Dar], ni dai kubwa na zito sana.

Ni kashfa kubwa sana. Kwa mtu tu wa kawaida, kutuhumiwa kuua mtu mwenzio si jambo dogo. Seuze Rais wa nchi?

Wengi wetu kwa sasa tutakuwa tumeshaiona hii excerpt ya hicho kitabu:
View attachment 3190381

Napata wakati mgumu sana kuamini kuwa Rais Magufuli anaweza kumuua kijana wa Kitanzania, ambaye ni mtu mdogo sana, in the grand scheme of things, kwa mikono yake mwenyewe tena kwenye nyumba ya wananchi, Ikulu.

Tumeshawazoea akina Lissu na wenzake kuropoka na kutoa tuhuma za ajabu ajabu bila kutoa wala kuonyesha ushahidi wowote ule zaidi ya kusema ‘nimeambiwa’ au ‘niliambiwa’.

Lissu keshawahi kusema mara kadhaa kuwa baada ya Magufuli kufariki, eti nyumbani kwake yalikutwa mabulungutu ya mahela, dola za Kimarekani, kwenye mamilioni.

Bila ushahidi wowote ule zaidi ya ‘kuambiwa’, tuhuma hizo zinabaki kuwa ni porojo tu za Lissu.

Na ndo maana pengine hata familia ya Rais Magufuli haijawahi kusema wala kufanya chochote dhidi ya madai hayo.

Ila hili la Magufuli kutuhumiwa kuwa ni cold-blooded murderer, si la kawaida na halipaswi kupuuziwa.

If not true, what Kabendera did is libelous and should sued.

Mimi si mtaalamu wa sheria za Tanzania. Lakini naamini sheria za libel zipo.

Licha ya kwamba Rais Magufuli alikuwa ni public figure, kuna vitu huwezi kuvisema dhidi yake bila ushahidi.

Tuhuma za mauaji kwa mtu yeyote yule, humtia doa kubwa sana kwenye jamii, mtu huyo.

Majuzi hapa tumeona kituo cha televisheni cha Marekani, ABC, kilikubali kumlipa Rais Trump $15 milioni kwa sababu mmoja wa watangazaji wake alisema kimakosa kuwa Trump alipatikana na hatia ya ubakaji wakati si kweli.

Kubaka ni moja ya makosa yanayompa mtu doa la maisha.

Uuaji, kwangu mimi, ni kosa lililo juu ya ubakaji.

Sasa huyu jamaa Kabendera anakuja na tuhuma nzito namna hiyo tena kwa Rais mzima bila hata ushahidi wowote ule zaidi ya kusema kaambiwa na vyanzo vyake.

Hapana kwa kweli. Tuhuma kama hizo ni nzito sana kuachwa hivi hivi tu, la sivyo kama ni za ukweli.

Familia ya Rais Magufuli ikimwacha huyu jamaa bila kumburuza mahakani akatoe testimony yake huko under the penalty of perjury, itakuwa ni usaliti mkubwa sana kuwahi tokea nchini.

Yaani kabisa Rais Magufuli ampige risasi ya/za kichwa huyo Ben Saanane hapo Ikulu, halafu watu wa Magufuli waichukue maiti yake na kwenda kuitupa kwenye moto Rufiji?

Vigumu sana kuamini hilo.

Familia ya Rais Magufuli ni lazima ichore mstari mchangani na kuchukua hatua.

La sivyo, mtatufanya watu kama mimi tuamini kuwa yanayosemwa ni ya kweli.
Click to expand...
Wewe kweli msengerema
 
Kaflag kafanikiwa sana hadi sasa anaongoza 3-0 na ni kipindi cha pili dakika ya 90 ngoja tuone
 
Nyani Ngabu said:
Katika madai yote dhidi ya Rais Magufuli, hili dai la huyu mwandishi Eric Kabdendera, kuwa Rais Magufuli alimuua Ben Saanane kwa kumpiga risasi ya kichwa hapo Ikulu [nasadiki ni Ikulu ya Dar], ni dai kubwa na zito sana.

Ni kashfa kubwa sana. Kwa mtu tu wa kawaida, kutuhumiwa kuua mtu mwenzio si jambo dogo. Seuze Rais wa nchi?

Wengi wetu kwa sasa tutakuwa tumeshaiona hii excerpt ya hicho kitabu:
View attachment 3190381

Napata wakati mgumu sana kuamini kuwa Rais Magufuli anaweza kumuua kijana wa Kitanzania, ambaye ni mtu mdogo sana, in the grand scheme of things, kwa mikono yake mwenyewe tena kwenye nyumba ya wananchi, Ikulu.

Tumeshawazoea akina Lissu na wenzake kuropoka na kutoa tuhuma za ajabu ajabu bila kutoa wala kuonyesha ushahidi wowote ule zaidi ya kusema ‘nimeambiwa’ au ‘niliambiwa’.

Lissu keshawahi kusema mara kadhaa kuwa baada ya Magufuli kufariki, eti nyumbani kwake yalikutwa mabulungutu ya mahela, dola za Kimarekani, kwenye mamilioni.

Bila ushahidi wowote ule zaidi ya ‘kuambiwa’, tuhuma hizo zinabaki kuwa ni porojo tu za Lissu.

Na ndo maana pengine hata familia ya Rais Magufuli haijawahi kusema wala kufanya chochote dhidi ya madai hayo.

Ila hili la Magufuli kutuhumiwa kuwa ni cold-blooded murderer, si la kawaida na halipaswi kupuuziwa.

If not true, what Kabendera did is libelous and should sued.

Mimi si mtaalamu wa sheria za Tanzania. Lakini naamini sheria za libel zipo.

Licha ya kwamba Rais Magufuli alikuwa ni public figure, kuna vitu huwezi kuvisema dhidi yake bila ushahidi.

Tuhuma za mauaji kwa mtu yeyote yule, humtia doa kubwa sana kwenye jamii, mtu huyo.

Majuzi hapa tumeona kituo cha televisheni cha Marekani, ABC, kilikubali kumlipa Rais Trump $15 milioni kwa sababu mmoja wa watangazaji wake alisema kimakosa kuwa Trump alipatikana na hatia ya ubakaji wakati si kweli.

Kubaka ni moja ya makosa yanayompa mtu doa la maisha.

Uuaji, kwangu mimi, ni kosa lililo juu ya ubakaji.

Sasa huyu jamaa Kabendera anakuja na tuhuma nzito namna hiyo tena kwa Rais mzima bila hata ushahidi wowote ule zaidi ya kusema kaambiwa na vyanzo vyake.

Hapana kwa kweli. Tuhuma kama hizo ni nzito sana kuachwa hivi hivi tu, la sivyo kama ni za ukweli.

Familia ya Rais Magufuli ikimwacha huyu jamaa bila kumburuza mahakani akatoe testimony yake huko under the penalty of perjury, itakuwa ni usaliti mkubwa sana kuwahi tokea nchini.

Yaani kabisa Rais Magufuli ampige risasi ya/za kichwa huyo Ben Saanane hapo Ikulu, halafu watu wa Magufuli waichukue maiti yake na kwenda kuitupa kwenye moto Rufiji?

Vigumu sana kuamini hilo.

Familia ya Rais Magufuli ni lazima ichore mstari mchangani na kuchukua hatua.

La sivyo, mtatufanya watu kama mimi tuamini kuwa yanayosemwa ni ya kweli.
Click to expand...
Wao wanmjua Magufuli kwa undani kuliko sisi ,hawawezi kukubali wala kuktaa😔😔
 
Tukundane said:
Pamoja na kuwa na ujinga wa kutisha,kwa mjibu wa bandiko lako umewashauri wanafamilia wasiliache jambo kupita kama upepo pasipo kumburuza mwandishi mahakamani,kwa maana nyingine wanafamilia ndio watakao simama mahakamani kama walalamikaji wakilalamika kukashifiwa au kudhalilishwa kwa baba yao mzazi na mwandishi wa habari ambaye atakuwa ndiye mtuhumiwa.

Na kwa mjibu wa mahakama zetu jukumu la kuthibitisha madai au jinai ni la pande zote mbili upande wa mlalamiji na upande wa mtuhumiwa.

Upande wa mlalamikaji ndio huwa unatangulia kuthibitisha kwa vielelezo au kwa ushahidi wa mdomo pasipo kuacha shaka lolote ni vipi amedhuliwa na mtuhumiwa.

Na kwa upande wa mtuhumiwa nako ni hivyohivyo ni lazima athibitishe kwa vielelezo au kwa ushahidi wa mdomo pasipo kuacha shaka lolote kujibu tuhuma zake.

Kwa mjibu wa bandiko lako moja kwa moja walalamikaji ni wanafamilia ya Magufuli ambao umewataka wamburuze mahakamani mwandishi wa habari kama mtuhumiwa akathibitishe tuhuma za mauaji yaliofanywa na baba yao.

Kwa hiyo wanafamilia kama walalamikaji ni lazima wakathibitishe malalamiko yao mahakamani,kwa kuwa mlalamikaji ni lazima atatoa vielelezo vyake vinavyothibitisha kuwa Magufuli aliua na wao ni lazima watoe vielelezo vinavyothibitisha kuwa Magufuli hakuua kama ambavyo angeweza kufanya Magufuli mwenyewe kama angekuwa hai ambapo huwezi kujua pengine angeweza kukiri tuhuma zake au kukanusha.

Ila kama kuna mahakama ambayo kisheria mlalamikaji hatakiwi kuthibitisha malalamiko yake unaweza utanijuza.
Click to expand...
Mama Magufuli na watoto hawawezi kufanya Hilo! Labda Dotto James!
 
Since the death of JPM
Kabendera amepita humu 24/7 kabla ya kuchapa kitabu......
Hata mimi layman wa sheria na hii act, bado naona kuna loophole kibao za kupita humohumo...
Na sasa kama yupo UK, huu upupu haukamati kitu...

the Media Services Act, 2016

PART V DEFAMATION​

Defamation 35.-(1) Any matter which, if published, is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or likely to damage any person in his profession or trade by an injury to his reputation, is a defamatory matter.
(2) The matter referred to under subsection (1) shall qualify to be a defamatory matter even when it is published against a deceased person.
(3) The prosecution for the publication of defamatory matter concerning a person who is dead shall not be instituted without the written consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

No. 12 The Media Services Act 2016 23 ___________________________________________________________________________________________​
Defamation in print media
Definition of unlawful publication
Cases in which publication is absolutely privileged

36.-(1) A person shall be deemed to make publication of a libel if that person causes the print, writing, painting, effigy or other means by which the defamatory matter is conveyed, to be dealt with, either by exhibition, reading, recitation, description, delivery or otherwise, in a way that the defamatory meaning thereof becomes known or is likely to be known to either the person defamed or any other person.
(2) It shall not be necessary for defamation that the defamatory meaning is directly or completely expressed.
(3) For the purpose of subsection (2), it shall be sufficient that such meaning and its application to the person alleged to be defamed may be collected either from the alleged libel itself or from any extrinsic circumstances or partly from the one and partly from the other means.

37. Publication of defamatory matter concerning a person shall be unlawful within the meaning of this Part, unless-
(a) the matter is true and it was for the public benefit that it is published; or
(b) it is privileged as one of the grounds for the reasons provided under this Act.

38.-(1) The publication of defamatory matter is absolutely privileged, and a person shall not be liable to punishment in that respect where-
(a) the matter is published by the President, the Government or the National Assembly in any official document or legal proceedings;
(b) the matter is published in the National Assembly, by the President, the Government or by any member of the National Assembly or the Speaker;
(c) the matter is published by order of the President or the Government;

24 No. 12 The Media Services Act 2016 ___________________________________________________________________________________________

(d) the matter is published concerning a person who is the subject to military or naval discipline for the time being, and relates to his conduct as a person who is the subject of such discipline and is published by the person having authority over him in respect of such conduct;
(e) the matter is published in the course of any judicial proceedings by a person taking part in court proceedings as a judge or magistrate or commissioners or advocate or assessor or witness or party thereto;
(f) the matter published is in fact a fair report of anything said, done or published in the National Assembly; or
(g) the person publishing the matter is legally bound to publish it.
(2) Where a publication is absolutely privileged, it is immaterial for the purposes of this Part whether the matter is true or false, and whether it is known or be not known or believed to be false, and whether or not it is published in good faith.
(3) Nothing in this section shall exempt any person from any liability of a civil or criminal nature under any other Part of this Act or under any other written law if the publication of a matter alleged to be absolutely privileged is prohibited or the relief to a person injured is available under the Constitution of the United Republic.


Cases in which publication is conditionally privileged

39. A publication of defamatory matter is privileged on condition that it was published in good faith, if the relation between the parties by or to whom the publication is made is such that the person publishing the matter is under some legal, moral or social duty to publish it to the person to whom the publication is made or has a legitimate personal interest in publishing it and the publication does not exceed either in extent or matter what is reasonably sufficient for the occasion, and in any of the following cases, namely-

No. 12 The Media Services Act 2016 25 ___________________________________________________________________________________________​

(a) the matter published, is in fact, a fair report of anything said, done or shown in a civil or criminal inquiry or proceedings before any court, if however the court prohibited the publication of anything said or shown before it, on the ground that it is seditious, immoral or blasphemous, the publication shall not be privileged;
(b) the matter published, is a copy or, reproduction, or is in fact, a fair abstract of any matter which was previously published, and the previous publication of which was or would have been privileged under this Part;
(c) the matter is an expression of opinion in good faith as to the conduct of any person in a judicial, official or other public capacity, or as to his personal character so far as it appears in such conduct;
(d) the matter is an expression of opinion in good faith as to the conduct of a person in relation to a public question or matter, or as to his personal character, so far as it appears in such conduct;
(e) the matter is an expression of opinion in good faith as to the conduct of any person disclosed by evidence given in a public legal proceedings, whether civil or criminal, as to the conduct of any person as a party, witness or otherwise in any such proceedings, or as to the character of any person so far as it appears in any such conduct as in this paragraph;
(f) the matter is an expression of opinion in good faith as to the merits of any book, writing, painting, speech or other work, performance or act published or publicly done or made or submitted by a person to the judgment of the public, or as to the character of the person so far as it appears;

26 No. 12 The Media Services Act 2016 ___________________________________________________________________________________________

(g) the matter is a censure passed by a person in good faith on the conduct of another person in any matter in respect of which he has authority, by contract or otherwise, over the person, or on the character of the other person, so far as it appears in such conduct;
(h) the matter is a complaint or accusation made by a person in good faith against another person in respect of his conduct in any matter, or in respect of his character so far as it appears in such conduct, to any person having authority, by contract or otherwise, over that other person in respect of such conduct or matter, or having authority by law to inquire into or receive complaints respecting such conduct or matter; or
(i) the matter is published in good faith for the protection of the rights or interests of the person who publishes or of the person to whom it is published.

Offer of amends 40.-(1) A person who publishes words alleged to be defamatory of another person may, if he claims that the words were published by him innocently in relation to that other person, make an offer of amends and in that case where-
(a) the offer is accepted by the party aggrieved and is duly performed, no proceedings for libel or slander shall be taken or continued by that party against the person making the offer in respect of the publication in question, but without prejudice to any cause of action against any other person jointly responsible for that publication;

No. 12 The Media Services Act 2016 27 ___________________________________________________________________________________________​

(b) the offer of amends is not accepted by the party aggrieved, then, except as otherwise provided for by this section, it shall be a defence for the person making the offer, in any proceedings by the party aggrieved for libel, slander against the person making the offer in respect of the publication in question, to prove that:
(i) the words complained of were published by the defendant innocently in relation to the plaintiff; and
(ii) the offer was made as soon as practicable after the defendant received notice that they were or might be defamatory of the plaintiff, and has not been withdrawn.
(2) An offer of amends made pursuant to this section, shall be accompanied by an affidavit specifying the facts relied upon by the person making it to show that the words in question were published innocently in relation to the party aggrieved.
(3) For the purpose of a defence under paragraph (b) of subsection (1), no evidence, other than evidence of facts specified in the affidavit, shall be admissible on behalf of the person making the offer of amends to prove that the words were so published.
(4) An offer of amends referred shall be construed and understood to mean an offer-
(a) in any case, to publish or join in the publication of a suitable correction of the words complained of, and a sufficient apology to the party aggrieved in respect of those words; and

28 No. 12 The Media Services Act 2016 ___________________________________________________________________________________________​

(b) where copies of a document or record containing the written words have been distributed by or with the knowledge of the person making the offer, to take such steps as are reasonably practicable on for notifying persons to whom copies have been so distributed that the words are alleged to be defamatory of the party aggrieved.
(5) Where an offer of amends is accepted by the party aggrieved:
(a) any question as to the step to be taken in fulfilment of the offer as so accepted shall, in default of agreement between the parties, be referred to and determined by the court; and
(b) power of the court to make orders as to costs in proceedings by the party aggrieved against the person making the offer in respect of the publication in question or in proceedings in respect of the offer referred to under paragraph (a) shall include power to order the payment by the person making the offer to the party aggrieved of the costs of an indemnity basis, and expenses reasonably incurred or to be incurred by that party in consequence of the publication in question.
(6) Where no proceedings have been commenced in pursuance to subsection (1), the court may, upon application made by the party aggrieved, make an order for the payment of the costs and expenses as court finds just and appropriate.
(7) For the purpose of this section, words shall be treated as published by one person, in this subsection referred to as the publisher, innocently in relation to another person if the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) the publisher did not intend to publish the words and concerning that other person and did not know of circumstances by virtue of which they might be understood to refer to that other person; or

No. 12 The Media Services Act 2016 29 ___________________________________________________________________________________________​

(b) the words were not defamatory on the face of it and the publisher did not know circumstances by virtue of which they might be understood to be defamatory of that other person, and in either case, that the publisher exercised all reasonable care in relation to the publication.
(8) Any reference in subsection (7) to the publisher shall be construed as including a reference to a servant or agent of the publisher in relation to the contents of the publication in question.
(9) The provisions of subsection (1)(b) shall not apply in relation to the publication of words by a person who is not the author unless he proves that the words were written by the author without malice.

Redress for defamation
41.-(1) Where a person alleges that a print or electronic media content is defamatory within the meaning of this Act, that person may file a case in the court for redress.

(2) The case shall contain a copy of a print or electronic media content complained about or, if the print or electronic media content cannot be extracted without unduly difficulty, statement to the effect that retrieval of the print or electronic media content has not been possible.

(3) The court shall, as soon as practicable and in accordance with the procedural laws, hear and determine the case.

(4) The Chief Justice may, by Order published in the Gazette, make rules for the purpose of timely and expeditious determination of cases under this Part.
 
Nyani Ngabu said:
Katika madai yote dhidi ya Rais Magufuli, hili dai la huyu mwandishi Eric Kabdendera, kuwa Rais Magufuli alimuua Ben Saanane kwa kumpiga risasi ya kichwa hapo Ikulu [nasadiki ni Ikulu ya Dar], ni dai kubwa na zito sana.

Ni kashfa kubwa sana. Kwa mtu tu wa kawaida, kutuhumiwa kuua mtu mwenzio si jambo dogo. Seuze Rais wa nchi?

Wengi wetu kwa sasa tutakuwa tumeshaiona hii excerpt ya hicho kitabu:
View attachment 3190381

Napata wakati mgumu sana kuamini kuwa Rais Magufuli anaweza kumuua kijana wa Kitanzania, ambaye ni mtu mdogo sana, in the grand scheme of things, kwa mikono yake mwenyewe tena kwenye nyumba ya wananchi, Ikulu.

Tumeshawazoea akina Lissu na wenzake kuropoka na kutoa tuhuma za ajabu ajabu bila kutoa wala kuonyesha ushahidi wowote ule zaidi ya kusema ‘nimeambiwa’ au ‘niliambiwa’.

Lissu keshawahi kusema mara kadhaa kuwa baada ya Magufuli kufariki, eti nyumbani kwake yalikutwa mabulungutu ya mahela, dola za Kimarekani, kwenye mamilioni.

Bila ushahidi wowote ule zaidi ya ‘kuambiwa’, tuhuma hizo zinabaki kuwa ni porojo tu za Lissu.

Na ndo maana pengine hata familia ya Rais Magufuli haijawahi kusema wala kufanya chochote dhidi ya madai hayo.

Ila hili la Magufuli kutuhumiwa kuwa ni cold-blooded murderer, si la kawaida na halipaswi kupuuziwa.

If not true, what Kabendera did is libelous and should sued.

Mimi si mtaalamu wa sheria za Tanzania. Lakini naamini sheria za libel zipo.

Licha ya kwamba Rais Magufuli alikuwa ni public figure, kuna vitu huwezi kuvisema dhidi yake bila ushahidi.

Tuhuma za mauaji kwa mtu yeyote yule, humtia doa kubwa sana kwenye jamii, mtu huyo.

Majuzi hapa tumeona kituo cha televisheni cha Marekani, ABC, kilikubali kumlipa Rais Trump $15 milioni kwa sababu mmoja wa watangazaji wake alisema kimakosa kuwa Trump alipatikana na hatia ya ubakaji wakati si kweli.

Kubaka ni moja ya makosa yanayompa mtu doa la maisha.

Uuaji, kwangu mimi, ni kosa lililo juu ya ubakaji.

Sasa huyu jamaa Kabendera anakuja na tuhuma nzito namna hiyo tena kwa Rais mzima bila hata ushahidi wowote ule zaidi ya kusema kaambiwa na vyanzo vyake.

Hapana kwa kweli. Tuhuma kama hizo ni nzito sana kuachwa hivi hivi tu, la sivyo kama ni za ukweli.

Familia ya Rais Magufuli ikimwacha huyu jamaa bila kumburuza mahakani akatoe testimony yake huko under the penalty of perjury, itakuwa ni usaliti mkubwa sana kuwahi tokea nchini.

Yaani kabisa Rais Magufuli ampige risasi ya/za kichwa huyo Ben Saanane hapo Ikulu, halafu watu wa Magufuli waichukue maiti yake na kwenda kuitupa kwenye moto Rufiji?

Vigumu sana kuamini hilo.

Familia ya Rais Magufuli ni lazima ichore mstari mchangani na kuchukua hatua.

La sivyo, mtatufanya watu kama mimi tuamini kuwa yanayosemwa ni ya kweli.
Click to expand...
100%
 
Nyani Ngabu said:
Mahakama zetu jukumu la kuthibitisha ni la pande zote mbili? How?

Kabendera kasema Magufuli alimuua Ben.

Familia ya Magufuli inawajibika kuthibitisha nini hapo zaidi ya kusema hizo tuhuma si za kweli?
Click to expand...
Kwa hiyo watasimama mahakamani tu na kusema kuwa tuhuma hizo siyo za kweli hivyohivyo basi watakuwa wamemaliza malalamiko yao kwa mtuhumiwa?.

Pasipo hata kutoa vielelezo vinavyothibitisha mahakamani ni vipi mtuhumiwa alimtuhumu baba yao mzazi?alimtuhumu wapi?kwa njia gani?kama ni kwa matamshi pasipo hata kuleta mashahidi waliosikia wakati mtuhumiwa anatamka?kama ni kwa maandishi mtuhumiwa alitumia chombo gani kuandika tuhuma hizo?kama ni kitabu au gazeti inamaana kuwa nyaraka zote hizo hazitatatolewa mahakamani kama vielelezo?.

Kwa hiyo familia wanatakiwa wathibitishe tuhuma hizo siyo za kweli kwa vielelezo na siyo kwa kusimama mahakamani na kusema tuhuma hizo siyo za kweli,wanatakiwa wathibitishe tuhuma hizo siyo za kweli kivipi.
 
Kanali_ said:
Story za Muhammad zinachanganya sana! Mpaka anaagiza uchunguzi alikuwa kiongozi wa kijamii au kidini? Na kama alikuwa kiongozi mbona jina lake si kati ya historia ya majina ya viongozi wa Maka/Madina?
Click to expand...
Alikuwa kiongozi wa kidini na kijamii na kama huna habari ya uongozi wake Makah na Madina basi historia kwako imekupita kushoto.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Community

Regional Communities

Back
Top Bottom
Menu
Forums
New posts
Log in
Register