Ibara ya 98 ta Katiba ambayo Imevunjwa na Mchakato wa Katiba Mpya!

[Mzee Mwanakijiji]

98.-(1) Bunge laweza kutunga Sheria kwa ajili ya kubadilisha
masharti yoyote ya Katiba hii kwa kufuata Kanuni zifuatazo:-
(a) Muswada wa Sheria kwa ajili ya kubadilisha masharti
yoyote ya Katiba hii (isipokuwa yale yanayohusika na
aya ya (b) ya ibara hii ndogo) au masharti yoyote ya
sheria yoyote iliyotajwa katika Orodha ya Kwanza
kwenye Nyongeza ya Pili utaungwa mkono kwa kura
za Wabunge ambao idadi yao haipungui theluthi mbili
ya Wabunge wote;

(b) Muswada wa Sheria kwa ajili ya kubadilisha masharti
yoyote ya Katiba hii au masharti yoyote ya Sheria
yoyote yanayohusika na jambo lolote kati ya mambo
yaliyotajwa katika Orodha ya Pili kwenye Nyongeza ya
Pili iliyoko mwishoni wa Katiba hii, utapitishwa tu
iwapo utaungwa mkono kwa kura za Wabunge ambao
idadi yao haipungui theluthi mbili ya Wabunge wote
kutoka Tanzania Bara na theluthi mbili ya Wabunge
wote kutoka Tanzania Zanzibar.

(2) Kwa madhumuni ya ufafanuzi wa masharti ya ibara ndogo
ya (1) kubadilisha masharti ya Katiba hii au masharti ya sheria
maana yake ifahamike kuwa ni pamoja na kurekebisha au
kusahihisha masharti haya au kufuta na kuweka masharti mengine
badala yake au kusisitiza au kubadilisha matumizi ya masharti
hayo.

SWALI BADO HALIJAJIBIWA: Ni ibara gani ya Katiba ya sasa inayoruhusu Katiba hii kufutwa na kuandikwa nyingine? Au ni wapi ambapo kuna chombo kilichopewa madaraka ya kuweza kuanzisha mchakato wa kufuta Katiba hii kama Bunge lilivyopewa madaraka ya kubadilisha vipengele na masharti ya katiba ya sasa?

Hiki kinachoitwa Bunge la Katiba kiko wapi kwenye Katiba ya Muungano? Neno lenyewe Bunge la Katiba halipo kwenye Katiba hii.

 

[Mp Kalix2]

98.-(1) Bunge laweza kutunga Sheria kwa ajili ya kubadilisha
masharti yoyote ya Katiba hii kwa kufuata Kanuni zifuatazo:-
(a) Muswada wa Sheria kwa ajili ya kubadilisha masharti
yoyote ya Katiba hii (isipokuwa yale yanayohusika na
aya ya (b) ya ibara hii ndogo) au masharti yoyote ya
sheria yoyote iliyotajwa katika Orodha ya Kwanza
kwenye Nyongeza ya Pili utaungwa mkono kwa kura
za Wabunge ambao idadi yao haipungui theluthi mbili
ya Wabunge wote;

(b) Muswada wa Sheria kwa ajili ya kubadilisha masharti
yoyote ya Katiba hii au masharti yoyote ya Sheria
yoyote yanayohusika na jambo lolote kati ya mambo
yaliyotajwa katika Orodha ya Pili kwenye Nyongeza ya
Pili iliyoko mwishoni wa Katiba hii, utapitishwa tu
iwapo utaungwa mkono kwa kura za Wabunge ambao
idadi yao haipungui theluthi mbili ya Wabunge wote
kutoka Tanzania Bara na theluthi mbili ya Wabunge
wote kutoka Tanzania Zanzibar.

(2) Kwa madhumuni ya ufafanuzi wa masharti ya ibara ndogo
ya (1) kubadilisha masharti ya Katiba hii au masharti ya sheria
maana yake ifahamike kuwa ni pamoja na kurekebisha au
kusahihisha masharti haya au kufuta na kuweka masharti mengine
badala yake au kusisitiza au kubadilisha matumizi ya masharti
hayo.

Hiki kinachoitwa Bunge la Katiba kiko wapi kwenye Katiba ya Muungano? Neno lenyewe Bunge la Katiba halipo kwenye Katiba hii.

Jambo hili linakatisha tamaa .Mkuu MMKj nao watalamu wa sheria na mashabiki wa Katiba mpya wako kimya. Na hili linanipa mimi shida kama kweli tuko serious na kitu kinachoitwa Rasimu ya Katiba Mpya.

Ieleweke kuwa taratibu za kupata Katiba Mpya kama itashindwa kufuata taratibu za Kisheria/Kikatiba kwa mujibu wa Katiba iliyopo huko mbele ya safari hizi Kelele na ushabiki wote na hatua hizi zakukutana Ikulu na kupiga picha ,kunywa juice ni kupoteza pesa za walipa Kodi.

Nashauri wataalamu wa Sheria ebu mje humu mudadavue hii kitu!

Na jambo la muhimu na ambalo liko wazi sasa ni kwamba Mchakato huu umevunja Katiba na kwa mantiki hiyo Raisi amevunja Katiba aliyoapa kuilinda.

Mchungaji Mtikila natumai hili ataliona !



Mimi kwa uelewa wangu mdogo hoja hii ya Mzee Mwanakijiji pamoja na misimamo yake ya kutokukubaliana na Rasimu ya Katiba mpya lakini Kisheria taratibu iliyofikiwa kuanzisha Mchakato huu wa Katiba hauko sawa Kwa mujibu wa Ibara hizo tajwa hapo juu.

Na hili nadhani ndiko hoja ya MMkjj inakoelekea na kuhoji kwamba ni Ibara ipi ya Katiba iliyopo inayoipa/iliyoipa Mamlaka Ikulu/Raisi na Bunge kuleta Mchakato wa Rasimu ya Katiba mpya ambao mwisho wake kutakuwa na Bunge Maalumu la Katiba na ambayo litaweza /kwenda kupangua orodha tajwa hapo chini.

(Toleo hili la Katiba ya Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania, ya Mwaka 1977,limezingatia na kuweka pamoja mabadiliko yote yaliyofanywa katika Katiba ya Muungano tangu ilipotungwa mwaka 1977 hadi tarehe 30 Aprili, 2000.

ORODHA YA PILI
(Imetajwa katika ibara 98 (1) (b))
Mambo ambayo mabadiliko yake yahitaji kuungwa mkono na theluthi mbili ya Wabunge wote kutoka Tanzania Bara na theluthi
mbili ya Wabunge wote kutoka Tanzania Visiwani.
1. Kuwapo kwa Jamhuri ya Muungano.
2. Kuwapo kwa Ofisi ya Rais wa Jamhuri ya Muungano.
3. Madaraka ya Serikali ya Jamhuri ya Muungano.
4. Kuwapo kwa Bunge la Jamhuri ya Muungano.
5. Madaraka ya Serikali ya Zanzibar.
6. Mahakama Kuu ya Zanzibar.
7. Orodha ya Mambo ya Muungano.
8. Idadi ya Wabunge kutoka Zanzibar.
_____________

 

[Companero]

"I quickly read the press statement. I am afraid in my opinion it is
a very weak statement and in some cases simply not correct. On blatant
omission is on the very fundamental question which forms the heart of any
process of making a new constitution. This is the composition of the
Constituent Assembly. Currently the Constituent Assembly would be composed
of all the members of parliament, all members of Z'bar house of
Representatives and 116 other members drawn (presumably by the president)
from the named organisations. Whom are these people representing? First,
they have not been elected by the people for the specific purpose of passing
a new constitution - they were at best elected under the EXISTING
constitution - thus they do not have the mandate of the people to ADOPT a
NEW constitution. Secondly among them there is a significant number of
appointed members - almost 100. Thirdly, the large majority are from CCM.
Fourthly all, accept the 116 (among whom there may be party members we can't
tell) are POLITICAL PARTY members, but all Tanzanians for whom the new
constitution is being made are not all party members. In effect we are going
back to 1977 constituent assembly. This will be disastrous in my view.

Constituent Assembly ought to be an elected body where people as citizens
without any other qualifications elect their delegates with the special
mandate of adopting a new constitution. The Law Society statement totally
overlooks this - pity.
You may share this with others as you wish.

Am attaching my power point presentation which I made to the Parliamentary
Committee as well as in a public meeting on Saturday 12th"

- ISSA SHIVJI (Yahoo! Groups)

 

[Rutashubanyuma]

"I quickly read the press statement. I am afraid in my opinion it is
a very weak statement and in some cases simply not correct. On blatant
omission is on the very fundamental question which forms the heart of any
process of making a new constitution. This is the composition of the
Constituent Assembly. Currently the Constituent Assembly would be composed
of all the members of parliament, all members of Z'bar house of
Representatives and 116 other members drawn (presumably by the president)
from the named organisations. Whom are these people representing? First,
they have not been elected by the people for the specific purpose of passing
a new constitution - they were at best elected under the EXISTING
constitution - thus they do not have the mandate of the people to ADOPT a
NEW constitution. Secondly among them there is a significant number of
appointed members - almost 100. Thirdly, the large majority are from CCM.
Fourthly all, accept the 116 (among whom there may be party members we can't
tell) are POLITICAL PARTY members, but all Tanzanians for whom the new
constitution is being made are not all party members. In effect we are going
back to 1977 constituent assembly. This will be disastrous in my view.

Constituent Assembly ought to be an elected body where people as citizens
without any other qualifications elect their delegates with the special
mandate of adopting a new constitution. The Law Society statement totally
overlooks this - pity.
You may share this with others as you wish.

Am attaching my power point presentation which I made to the Parliamentary
Committee as well as in a public meeting on Saturday 12th"

- ISSA SHIVJI (Yahoo! Groups)

Articles 98 of the concomitant constitution clearly outlaws the on-going constitutional making process. hence, other arguments raised above have no practical relevance but may be of intellectual value when the process is inherently embedded in the current legal constitutional framework..........

 

[Rutashubanyuma]

98.-(1) Bunge laweza kutunga Sheria kwa ajili ya kubadilisha
masharti yoyote ya Katiba hii kwa kufuata Kanuni zifuatazo:-
(a) Muswada wa Sheria kwa ajili ya kubadilisha masharti
yoyote ya Katiba hii (isipokuwa yale yanayohusika na
aya ya (b) ya ibara hii ndogo) au masharti yoyote ya
sheria yoyote iliyotajwa katika Orodha ya Kwanza
kwenye Nyongeza ya Pili utaungwa mkono kwa kura
za Wabunge ambao idadi yao haipungui theluthi mbili
ya Wabunge wote;

(b) Muswada wa Sheria kwa ajili ya kubadilisha masharti
yoyote ya Katiba hii au masharti yoyote ya Sheria
yoyote yanayohusika na jambo lolote kati ya mambo
yaliyotajwa katika Orodha ya Pili kwenye Nyongeza ya
Pili iliyoko mwishoni wa Katiba hii, utapitishwa tu
iwapo utaungwa mkono kwa kura za Wabunge ambao
idadi yao haipungui theluthi mbili ya Wabunge wote
kutoka Tanzania Bara na theluthi mbili ya Wabunge
wote kutoka Tanzania Zanzibar.

(2) Kwa madhumuni ya ufafanuzi wa masharti ya ibara ndogo
ya (1) kubadilisha masharti ya Katiba hii au masharti ya sheria
maana yake ifahamike kuwa ni pamoja na kurekebisha au
kusahihisha masharti haya au kufuta na kuweka masharti mengine
badala yake au kusisitiza au kubadilisha matumizi ya masharti
hayo.

SWALI BADO HALIJAJIBIWA: Ni ibara gani ya Katiba ya sasa inayoruhusu Katiba hii kufutwa na kuandikwa nyingine? Au ni wapi ambapo kuna chombo kilichopewa madaraka ya kuweza kuanzisha mchakato wa kufuta Katiba hii kama Bunge lilivyopewa madaraka ya kubadilisha vipengele na masharti ya katiba ya sasa?

Hiki kinachoitwa Bunge la Katiba kiko wapi kwenye Katiba ya Muungano? Neno lenyewe Bunge la Katiba halipo kwenye Katiba hii.

what we are witnessing is legislative treason by our own A.G, the president and the Augusta house..............a court injunction seems to be a proper way to end this madness...........

 

[Rutashubanyuma]

From the infamaous Appeals Court decision of A.G v. Rev. Christopher Mtikila we can blithely soliloquize the following paragraphs:-

THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM

ILLAMADHANI, C. J.; MUNUO, J. A.; MSOFFE J. A.; KIMAROJ,A MBAROUK, J.A.;LUANDA, J. A.; And MJASIRI, J.A.)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 45 OF 2009

BETWEEN

THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL ... APPELLANT

AND

REVEREND CHRISTOPHER MTIKILA ... RESPONDENT (Appeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Tanzania at Dar Es Salaam,)​

(Manento, J. K.; Massati, J. And Mihayo, J.) dated the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] day of May , 2006
in

Misc. Civil Cause No. 10 of 2005


JUDGMENT OF THE COURT




.............on page .......25-27.............



The second matter is that Art 30(5) provides for the review of any Act of

Parliament in these words:


Where in any proceedings it is alleged that any law enacted or any action taken by the Government or any other authority abrogates or abridges any of the basic rights, freedoms and duties set out in Articles 12 to 29 of this Constitution, and the High Court is satisfied that the law or



25


action concerned, to the extent that it conflicts with this Constitution, is void or is inconsistent with this Constitution, then the High Court, if it deems fit, or if the circumstances or public interest so requires, instead of declaring that such law or action is void, shall have the power to decide to afford the Government or other authority concerned an opportunity to rectify the defect found in the law or action concerned an opportunity to rectify the defect found in the law or action concerned within such a period and such manner as the High Court shall determine, and such law or action shall be deemed to be valid until such time the defect is rectified or the period determined by the High Court lapses, whichever is the earlier.


The question which arises is whether a law effecting a constitutional

amendment according to Art 98(1) is like any other law passed by

Parliament.





Mr. Masaju contended that a constitutional amendment law is not like any

other law and that it is above ordinary law. That view was opposed by Mr.

Rweyongeza who was supported by Prof Mwaikusa. However, both the DPP









26


of Zanzibar and Prof Kabudi are of the same opinion as Mr. Masaju that a

constitutional amendment law is not like any other law.





The case of Kesavananda Bharat' v. State of Kerala, A. I. R. 1973 SC 1461

has been heavily relied upon in the High Court. We are grateful to Prof

Kabudi who pointed out that Justice KHANNA at p. 1903 stated:


The word 'law' in Art 13(2) does not include amendment of the Constitution. It has reference to ordinary pieces of legislation.

We are of the decided opinion that that is so. We say so because an

ordinary legislation can be enacted by a simple majority of

parliamentarians. That is not so with a constitutional amendment law

whose enactment requires a specific number of votes. Art 98(1)(a) is loud

and clear that:


A Bill for an Act to alter any provisions of this Constitution (other than those relating to paragraphs (b) of this subarticle) or any provisions of any law specified in List One of the Second Schedule to this Constitution shall be supported by the votes of not less than two thirds of all the Members of Parliament.



That paragraph speaks for itself but we have to point out that it is two-thirds of all the Members of Parliament and not just those sitting and voting. An ordinary law is not subjected to that stringent requirement.
...............on page........42-44...........


However, situations can arise where the High Court and this Court can nullify a constitutional provision on the ground that it is unconstitutional in the sense that it was not enacted as provided for by Art. 98. An example is where a constitutional amendment is challenged on the grounds that it did not obtain the prerequisite number of votes according to Art. 98(1)(a). We already pointed out earlier that generally a constitutional amendment requires the support of a two-thirds majority and under Art 98(1)(b) the support of two-thirds majority of all the Members of Parliament from Zanzibar and all Members of Parliament from the Mainland. If such a challenge is sustained then the court might have to find that the article has not been enacted in accordance with the constitutional provisions and is, therefore, unconstitutional.
In such a situation the courts will be performing its constitutional function of maintaining checks and balances. Otherwise, Tanzanian courts exercise


42


calculated restraint to avoid meddling in constituencies of the other two pillars of the State. This has been amply demonstrated in numerous decisions. LUGAKINGIRA, J., himself in his ruling in Rev. Mtikila's case refused many prayers as being not justiciable. We agree with Prof Mwaikusa that it is a pity that that ruling has not been reported. We recommend to the Editorial Committee to report it.


Another example of such judicial restraint is Mwalimu Paul John Mhozya v. Attorney General (No. 1) [1996] TLR 130 (HC). The applicant sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the President of the United Republic of Tanzania from discharging his functions pending a determination of the main case in which the applicant sought orders of declaration that: (a) the Constitution of the United Republic had been violated; (b) the President was guilty of having allowed or enabled the said violation; and (c) the continued exercise of presidential powers by President Ali Hassan Mwinyi was unconstitutional and a potential danger to the well being of the country and its citizens. It was held, inter alia,:
(iii) The principle that the functions of one branch of government should not encroach on the functions of another branch is an important one to ensure that the



43


governing of a state is executed smoothly and

peacefully;

(iv) No provision of the Constitution or any other law authorises the High Court to hold that the President can be removed or suspended from office by a body other than that which the Constitution specifically provides for;

(v) This Court has no jurisdiction to issue the order of injunction sought against the President.


Ground one is, therefore, allowed: a court cannot declare an article of the Constitution to be unconstitutional except where the article has not been enacted in accordance with the procedure under Art 98(1)(a) and (b).


After saying all that it is obvious that we cannot legally say that independent candidates are allowed. That is the province of Parliament to amend the Constitution according to Art 98(1).

It is clear that the on-going constitutional amending process has offended Article 98 (1) and the High Court ought to be requested to strike out the law behind this constitutional anarchy before our very eyes...............

 

[Mp Kalix2]

Articles 98 of the concomitant constitution clearly outlaws the on-going constitutional making process. hence, other arguments raised above have no practical relevance but may be of intellectual value when the process is inherently embedded in the current legal constitutional framework..........

And unfortunately this is where I fail to understand why most of our Academicians turn down their brains and keep liars here and then to Tanzanians. This group include the so called Jukwaa la Katiba ,Issa Shviji and there fellows (Politicians)



I expected if this groups , if at all they are serious they should have taken step to challenge this process in Court of Law and out of that, issuing statements to something out of fact are of nonsense

 

[Rutashubanyuma]

From the infamaous Appeals Court decision of A.G v. Rev. Christopher Mtikila we can blithely soliloquize the following paragraphs:-

THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM

ILLAMADHANI, C. J.; MUNUO, J. A.; MSOFFE J. A.; KIMAROJ,A MBAROUK, J.A.;LUANDA, J. A.; And MJASIRI, J.A.)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 45 OF 2009

BETWEEN

THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL ... APPELLANT

AND

REVEREND CHRISTOPHER MTIKILA ... RESPONDENT (Appeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Tanzania at Dar Es Salaam,)​

(Manento, J. K.; Massati, J. And Mihayo, J.) dated the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] day of May , 2006
in

Misc. Civil Cause No. 10 of 2005


JUDGMENT OF THE COURT




.............on page .......25-27.............



The second matter is that Art 30(5) provides for the review of any Act of

Parliament in these words:


Where in any proceedings it is alleged that any law enacted or any action taken by the Government or any other authority abrogates or abridges any of the basic rights, freedoms and duties set out in Articles 12 to 29 of this Constitution, and the High Court is satisfied that the law or



25


action concerned, to the extent that it conflicts with this Constitution, is void or is inconsistent with this Constitution, then the High Court, if it deems fit, or if the circumstances or public interest so requires, instead of declaring that such law or action is void, shall have the power to decide to afford the Government or other authority concerned an opportunity to rectify the defect found in the law or action concerned an opportunity to rectify the defect found in the law or action concerned within such a period and such manner as the High Court shall determine, and such law or action shall be deemed to be valid until such time the defect is rectified or the period determined by the High Court lapses, whichever is the earlier.


The question which arises is whether a law effecting a constitutional

amendment according to Art 98(1) is like any other law passed by

Parliament.





Mr. Masaju contended that a constitutional amendment law is not like any

other law and that it is above ordinary law. That view was opposed by Mr.

Rweyongeza who was supported by Prof Mwaikusa. However, both the DPP









26


of Zanzibar and Prof Kabudi are of the same opinion as Mr. Masaju that a

constitutional amendment law is not like any other law.





The case of Kesavananda Bharat' v. State of Kerala, A. I. R. 1973 SC 1461

has been heavily relied upon in the High Court. We are grateful to Prof

Kabudi who pointed out that Justice KHANNA at p. 1903 stated:


The word 'law' in Art 13(2) does not include amendment of the Constitution. It has reference to ordinary pieces of legislation.

We are of the decided opinion that that is so. We say so because an

ordinary legislation can be enacted by a simple majority of

parliamentarians. That is not so with a constitutional amendment law

whose enactment requires a specific number of votes. Art 98(1)(a) is loud

and clear that:


A Bill for an Act to alter any provisions of this Constitution (other than those relating to paragraphs (b) of this subarticle) or any provisions of any law specified in List One of the Second Schedule to this Constitution shall be supported by the votes of not less than two thirds of all the Members of Parliament.



That paragraph speaks for itself but we have to point out that it is two-thirds of all the Members of Parliament and not just those sitting and voting. An ordinary law is not subjected to that stringent requirement.
...............on page........42-44...........


However, situations can arise where the High Court and this Court can nullify a constitutional provision on the ground that it is unconstitutional in the sense that it was not enacted as provided for by Art. 98. An example is where a constitutional amendment is challenged on the grounds that it did not obtain the prerequisite number of votes according to Art. 98(1)(a). We already pointed out earlier that generally a constitutional amendment requires the support of a two-thirds majority and under Art 98(1)(b) the support of two-thirds majority of all the Members of Parliament from Zanzibar and all Members of Parliament from the Mainland. If such a challenge is sustained then the court might have to find that the article has not been enacted in accordance with the constitutional provisions and is, therefore, unconstitutional.
In such a situation the courts will be performing its constitutional function of maintaining checks and balances. Otherwise, Tanzanian courts exercise


42


calculated restraint to avoid meddling in constituencies of the other two pillars of the State. This has been amply demonstrated in numerous decisions. LUGAKINGIRA, J., himself in his ruling in Rev. Mtikila's case refused many prayers as being not justiciable. We agree with Prof Mwaikusa that it is a pity that that ruling has not been reported. We recommend to the Editorial Committee to report it.


Another example of such judicial restraint is Mwalimu Paul John Mhozya v. Attorney General (No. 1) [1996] TLR 130 (HC). The applicant sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the President of the United Republic of Tanzania from discharging his functions pending a determination of the main case in which the applicant sought orders of declaration that: (a) the Constitution of the United Republic had been violated; (b) the President was guilty of having allowed or enabled the said violation; and (c) the continued exercise of presidential powers by President Ali Hassan Mwinyi was unconstitutional and a potential danger to the well being of the country and its citizens. It was held, inter alia,:
(iii) The principle that the functions of one branch of government should not encroach on the functions of another branch is an important one to ensure that the



43


governing of a state is executed smoothly and

peacefully;

(iv) No provision of the Constitution or any other law authorises the High Court to hold that the President can be removed or suspended from office by a body other than that which the Constitution specifically provides for;

(v) This Court has no jurisdiction to issue the order of injunction sought against the President.


Ground one is, therefore, allowed: a court cannot declare an article of the Constitution to be unconstitutional except where the article has not been enacted in accordance with the procedure under Art 98(1)(a) and (b).


After saying all that it is obvious that we cannot legally say that independent candidates are allowed. That is the province of Parliament to amend the Constitution according to Art 98(1).

It is clear that the on-going constitutional amending process has offended Article 98 (1) and the High Court ought to be requested to strike out the law behind this constitutional anarchy before our very eyes...............

 

[Mp Kalix2]

what we are witnessing is legislative treason by our own A.G, the president and the Augusta house..............a court injunction seems to be a proper way to end this madness...........

Not to only ends Madness but it should be a lesson to rest of Power greedy dude's

 

[Pascal Mayalla]

Mkuu Mzee Mwanakijiji, nani kaifuta katiba iliyopo?!.

Baada ya rais JK kuinitiate mabadiliko ya katiba, muswada uliletwa bungeni na ukatungiwa sheria. Ulipousoma ule muswada hadi sheria kuna popote une semaine katiba mpya au kuna popote umeifuta hii katiba iliyopo?!.

Nashauri rudi kidogo darasani kasome kuhusu constitution making process!.

This is the first time Watanzania tunapata Fursa ya kutunga katiba yetu in a manner never before imewahi kutokea!.

Japo hatutapata katiba bora, bali bora katiba!, something is better than nothing!, tuipokee hiyo bora katiba kisha ndio tutafute katiba bora.
Pasco.

 

[Companero]

"We don't need JK's Commission! It will disturb the process by being malicious to the process in favour of the ruling party....we need first of all to amend the current Constitution especially article 98. The amendment that shall allow formation of an independent commitee not emanating from JK or any president thereto. This commission shoul include representatives from all walks of life ranging from ordinary citizens, religious leaders, CSOs, politicians and political parties, legal experts etc in our country that will collect the views of the people...it is not possible to suspend a constitution in any society if there is no revolution by mass or military coup de tat. In peaceful mood as in Tanzania we cannot suspend the current constitution...mind you to suspend a current constitution in absence of military coup de tat or mass revolution like the ones in Egypt, Tunisia or elsewhere amount to treason which is one of the capital offences in our law. Even JK HAS NO POWER legally to suspend a constitution because he was sworn in to defend it no matter how bad it is...." - A Young Tanzanian Lawyer in a Constitutional Debate, March 2011

 

[Companero]

And unfortunately this is where I fail to understand why most of our Academicians turn down their brains and keep liars here and then to Tanzanians. This group include the so called Jukwaa la Katiba ,Issa Shviji and there fellows (Politicians)

I expected if this groups , if at all they are serious they should have taken step to challenge this process in Court of Law and out of that, issuing statements to something out of fact are of nonsense

Mtake radhi Profesa Shivji, rejea haya maneno yake na i-google hiyo mada yake ipo mtandaoni:

"I quickly read the press statement. I am afraid in my opinion it is
a very weak statement and in some cases simply not correct. On blatant
omission is on the very fundamental question which forms the heart of any
process of making a new constitution. This is the composition of the
Constituent Assembly. Currently the Constituent Assembly would be composed
of all the members of parliament, all members of Z'bar house of
Representatives and 116 other members drawn (presumably by the president)
from the named organisations. Whom are these people representing? First,
they have not been elected by the people for the specific purpose of passing
a new constitution - they were at best elected under the EXISTING
constitution - thus they do not have the mandate of the people to ADOPT a
NEW constitution. Secondly among them there is a significant number of
appointed members - almost 100. Thirdly, the large majority are from CCM.
Fourthly all, accept the 116 (among whom there may be party members we can't
tell) are POLITICAL PARTY members, but all Tanzanians for whom the new
constitution is being made are not all party members. In effect we are going
back to 1977 constituent assembly. This will be disastrous in my view.

Constituent Assembly ought to be an elected body where people as citizens
without any other qualifications elect their delegates with the special
mandate of adopting a new constitution. The Law Society statement totally
overlooks this - pity.
You may share this with others as you wish.

Am attaching my power point presentation which I made to the Parliamentary
Committee as well as in a public meeting on Saturday 12th"

- ISSA SHIVJI (Yahoo! Groups)​

 

[Yericko Nyerere]

Mkuu mwanakijiji

Kwanza tukubaliane katiba iliyopo haijafutwa.

Nikweli katiba iliyopo haisemi nani wakuifuta ila inasema nani wa kuirekenisha,

Lakini tafsiri ya ibara hiyohiyo ya 98, inalipa bunge nguvu ya kuifuta

 

[Mp Kalix2]

Kwa lipi .Kwa kuuzunguka mbuyu kama mganga kinyeji .Hakuna kitu kibaya kama mwasheria ku
toa maoni na ushauri kisiasa.

 

[Mzee Mwanakijiji]

Mkuu Mzee Mwanakijiji, nani kaifuta katiba iliyopo?!.

Baada ya rais JK kuinitiate mabadiliko ya katiba, muswada uliletwa bungeni na ukatungiwa sheria. Ulipousoma ule muswada hadi sheria kuna popote une semaine katiba mpya au kuna popote umeifuta hii katiba iliyopo?!.

Nashauri rudi kidogo darasani kasome kuhusu constitution making process!.

This is the first time Watanzania tunapata Fursa ya kutunga katiba yetu in a manner never before imewahi kutokea!.

Japo hatutapata katiba bora, bali bora katiba!, something is better than nothing!, tuipokee hiyo bora katiba kisha ndio tutafute katiba bora.
Pasco.

Pasco, nadhani unahitaji kurudi nyuma kujifunza mantiq (logic) kwa sababu inaonekana unataka watu wakubali uongo wakati ukweli uko wazi. Watanzania hawajapewa nafasi ya kuandika Katiba yao; siyo katika process hii wala ile nyingine. Safari hii nafasi hii ingetumiwa vizuri lakini mchakato umeburuzwa buruzwa na watu wameukumbatia kwa maana hiyo ya "something is better than nothing".

Mchakato huu wa sasa utaifuta Katiba hii it is as simple as that. Sheria waliyopitisha kusimamia mchakato huu inakinzana moja kwa moja na article 98 ya Katiba; Kikwete na wenzake waliapa kuilinda na kuihifadhi Katiba hii lakini sasa wameanzisha mchakato mwingine. NI sawasawa na mtu aliyeoa na ana ndoa halali halafu anaanza kutafuta mchakato wa mchumba mwingine hasa kama dini yake hairuhusu mke zaidi ya mmoja. Well, ni wazi basi kuwa kwa kutafuta mke mwingine huyu bwana hana mpango na mke wa sasa. Lakini kama ndoa ya sasa bado ni halali huyu ataweza vipi kuoa mke mwingine isipokuwa kufuata utaratibu wa kumuacha huyu wa sasa?

Nikisema kuwa ikipitishwa Katiba nyingine hii ya sasa bado itakuwa halali kuna mtu atabisha kuwa sivyo? Uhalali wa sasa hauondolewi kwa kuandika Katiba Mpya kwa sababu ya sasa haina utaratibu wa kuifuta!

 

[Mzee Mwanakijiji]

Mkuu mwanakijiji

Kwanza tukubaliane katiba iliyopo haijafutwa.

Nikweli katiba iliyopo haisemi nani wakuifuta ila inasema nani wa kuirekenisha,

Lakini tafsiri ya ibara hiyohiyo ya 98, inalipa bunge nguvu ya kuifuta

Bunge haliwezi kuifuta Katiba ya sasa; linaweza kuifanyia marekebisho tu; kwani likiifuta na lenyewe itabidi livunjwe kwa sababu lipo kwa sababu ya Katiba hiyo! Hakuna namna ya kuifuta hii Katiba ya sasa period. Wanaweza kufanyia marekebisho vipengele na masharti yake mbalimbali kwa utaratibu ulioko kwenye Article 98; lakini hawawezi wakakaa Bungeni na ksuema "tunaifuta Katiba hii ili tuandike nyingine" kwa sababu waliapa kuilinda, kuitetea na kuhifadhi. Inashangaza sisi ambao hatukula viapo hivyo ndio tunaitetea Katiba hii!

 

[Mp Kalix2]

Mtake radhi Profesa Shivji, rejea haya maneno yake na i-google hiyo mada yake ipo mtandaoni:

Constituent Assembly ought to be an elected body where people as citizens
without any other qualifications elect their delegates with the special
mandate of adopting a new constitution. The Law Society statement totally
overlooks this - pity.
You may share this with others as you wish.

Am attaching my power point presentation which I made to the Parliamentary
Committee as well as in a public meeting on Saturday 12th"

- ISSA SHIVJI (Yahoo! Groups)
​

Kwa lipi nimtake radhi labda kama hujaelewa hoja ya shivji nimepunguza kunukuu ilikuepuka kurudia rudia lakini naomba nirurejesha kwa hoja ya Ruta labda utaelewa nilichokuwa na maanisha!

Rutashubanyuma #4



Articles 98 of the concomitant constitution clearly outlaws the on-going constitutional making process. hence, other arguments raised above have no practical relevance but may be of intellectual value when the process is inherently embedded in the current legal constitutional framework..........