Jaji Mustapha Siyani ataanza upya kusikiliza mapingamizi yaliyomfanya Jaji Elinaza kujitoa au anaendeleaje na kesi?

[Gellangi]

Line ya Kwanza ulipaswa kusema mlalamikiwa maana kesi ya jinai mlalamikaji Ni Jamhuri

Lakini umeuliza maswali mazito Sana, Jaji Elinaza katika uamuzi wake aliwachana Jamhuri wazi kwamba haiwezekani wao wakaelewa au kusoma fikra za wanadamu hasa pale Jamhuri ilipokiri kwamba watuhumiwa awakukaa kikao chochote kile lakini eti wakatuhumiwa kuwa na common intention ya kutenda Ugaidi. Hasa Kama Jamhuri inakiri watuhumiwa awajawahi kukaa kikao chochote Cha pamoja face to face au kupitia njia ya mtandao je, leo wanapoambiwa wakaandae upya charge watakuja kuieleza mahakama watuhumiwa walikaa kikao?

Jaji mpya anapaswa kuyapitia upya mapingazi yaliyopelekea Jaji kujitoa maana mapingamizi Yale yalilenga kuiomba mahakama ifute kesi hii. Naamini hata Kama yataandaliwa mashtaka upya Upande wa mlalamikiwa wataweka pingamizi na kuiomba mahakama irejee utetezi uliotolewa na Jamhuri awali.

Mfano: Kama Jamhuri ilieleza mahakama kwamba watuhumiwa awakukaa kikao then kesho kutwa wakaja na mashtaka yanayoeleza kwamba watuhumiwa walikaa kikao Basi walalamikiwa wataomba mahakama irejee kauli ya mawakili kwenye ujibuji wa hoja za awali na hapo itathibitika kwamba Jamhuri ilidanganya mahakama.

Kimsingi ndiyo maana wajuzi wa Sheria walishasema kesi ya Mh.Mbowe haipo na he is only being tortured.

 

[Mangisandy]

Wanasheria wana kitu wanaita technicalities kwenye paperwork za kesi; wanasheria wasiokuwa na nguvu hupenda kuiambia mahakama ifute kesi kwa sababu ya makosa ya technicalities. Lakini sijawahi kuona mtuhumiwa anaachiwa huru kwa sababu aliyemfikisha mahakamani alifanya makosa ya technicalities, na hivyo kufanya shauri lote lisisikikilizwe na mhakama. kazi ya mahakama ni kutafuta ukweli wa shauri lote, huwa haitafuti technicalities katika presentation ya shauri hilo.

Miaka ya hivi karibuni utetezi mkubwa wa Kibatala umekuwa ni kwenye technicalities tu, siyo kwenye facts za kesi. Ningependa nimwone Kibatala anavyofanya cross examination kwani ndiyo njia pekee ya kiufundi ambayo wanasheria hutumia kupata ukweli wa shauri la kesi, siyo technicality kwenye paperwork

Hizo technicallities unazosema ndo zimeipa ccm ushindi wa kishindo 2020, mpaka Mtu akafa March 2021! Kwa hiyo technicallities haifanyi kazi kwa upande wenu?!
Lakini hoja ya msingi, #Mbowesiyogaidi

 

[comte]

Mkuu 'Beatrice', hiyo aya uliyoandika hapo ni ngumu sana.

Na pia itakuwa ngumu sana kwa huyu Jaji mpya kuendelea kusikiliza kesi ambayo mtangulizi wake tayari amekwishaona kwamba hati ya mashtaka ina makosa. Ataendelea vipi kusikiliza kesi ambayo tayari hati yake ya mashtaka imekosewa?

Au wewe una maana ya kwamba Jaji mpya hatalazimika kuona hayo mwenzake aliyoyaona?

Kwa hiyo akina Kibatala na wao wataanza upya kabisa, kuleta lile pingamizi lao la mwanzo kuhusu uwezo wa mahakama hiyo kuisikiliza kesi hiyo?

Mbona huu utakuwa mzunguko wa ajabu sana!

Can chargesheet be changed?


The court may order a charge-sheet or indictment to be amended in any manner the court thinks necessary. An order may be made before or during a trial or hearing, unless the required amendment would cause injustice to the accused (CPA 2009 s8, s165).

 

[Ndiho]

Wanasheria wana kitu wanaita technicalities kwenye paperwork za kesi; wanasheria wasiokuwa na nguvu hupenda kuiambia mahakama ifute kesi kwa sababu ya makosa ya technicalities. Lakini sijawahi kuona mtuhumiwa anaachiwa huru kwa sababu aliyemfikisha mahakamani alifanya makosa ya technicalities, na hivyo kufanya shauri lote lisisikikilizwe na mhakama. kazi ya mahakama ni kutafuta ukweli wa shauri lote, huwa haitafuti technicalities katika presentation ya shauri hilo.

Miaka ya hivi karibuni utetezi mkubwa wa Kibatala umekuwa ni kwenye technicalities tu, siyo kwenye facts za kesi. Ningependa nimwone Kibatala anavyofanya cross examination kwani ndiyo njia pekee ya kiufundi ambayo wanasheria hutumia kupata ukweli wa shauri la kesi, siyo technicality kwenye paperwork

Wewe Kichuguu kesi ngapi na zipi umeonyesha umahili wako kwenye cross examinations? Kwamba hata kesi ikiwa makosa ya kiufundi wewe unatwanga tuu.

 

[CHIEF MASALAKULANGWA]

Ha

Upande wa mlalamikaji ulieleza mahakama kwa ushahidi na facts kwamba mashtaka yaliyowasilishwa na Jamuhuri hayapo au hayana nguvu na msingi wa kisheria. Jaji alinaza baada ya kusikiliza pande zote mbili alikubali kuwa hati ya mashtaka ina makosa lakini pamoja na kubaini makosa kwenye hati ya mashtaka hakutaka kuifuta kesi.

Kitendo Cha kukubali kwamba mashtaka yamekosewa lakini hapohapo akaielekeza Jamhuri ikaandae mashtaka upya kilileta picha kwamba yeye Jaji anajua mashtaka sahihi ya mtuhumiwa kitu ambacho nikinyume kabisa na sheria. Jaji apaswi kuelekeza jamhuri ikatafute makosa maana kama Jamhuri ingelikuwa na makosa sahihi walipoletewa pingamizi walipaswa kukubali kwamba hati ina mapungufu na waje na chaji nyingine.

Kama katika kipindi chote Cha uendeshaji mashtaka Jamhuri haikuwahi kuomba ikabadilishe hati ya mashtaka, jaji Elinaza aliielekeza Jamhuri ikarekebishe vipi hati ya mashtaka? Mazingira haya ya Jaji kujielekeza kutoa maamuzi ya hoja kinyume na utaratibu ndiyo yaliyopelekea Mtuhumiwa Mbowe kumwomba ajiondoe.

Je, jaji mpya anakuja kutolea maamuzi hoja za ubovu wa hati ya mashtaka au anakuja kufanya kazi gani? Kama anakuja kuendelea na ushauri wa jaji aliyepita kwa Jamhuri nini nafasi ya Malalamiko ya Mbowe kuhusu maamuzi mabovu yaliyotolewa na Jaji Elinaza?

Ni sahihi kwa mahakama kuelekeza Jamhuri namna yakuandaa mashtaka? Endapo Jamhuri itaelekezwa na Mahakama namna yakurekebisha hati ya mashtaka, je jaji atakapofika hatua ya kutoa hukumu atapingana na ushauri alioutoa?

Maana kitendo Cha jaji kuielekeza Jamhuru ikarekebishe hati ya mashtaka kinaashiria kwamba mahakama tayari inayajua makosa ya mtuhumiwa na imeshajiridhisha kuwa makosa yalitendwa ila tu Jamhuri ilikosea kuyaandaa mashtaka hayo kwa ukakasi huu tutegemee mahakama kutoa Haki wakati imejipa kazi yakushauri mashtaka yaweje?

Haya maelezo siyo sahihi! Kwa mfano mwalimu akikuambia kuwa umekosea say neno la Kiingereza na akakutaka uende ukarekebishe, hilo ni kosa!? Kwenye sheria mambo hayo hufanyika na ni utaratibu wa kawaida kwenda kufanyia marekebisho makosa katika mawasilisho mbali mbali. Si unakumbuka hata Wakili Msomi Kibatara aliwahi kuambiwa akafanye marekebisho kwenye kesi ya akina Mdee? Nadhani pingamizi la Gaidi lina sababu nyingine tu. Tusubiri tuone Jaji huyu atakwenda na washitakiwa/watuhumiwa.

 

[KalamuTena]

Can chargesheet be changed?


The court may order a charge-sheet or indictment to be amended in any manner the court thinks necessary. An order may be made before or during a trial or hearing, unless the required amendment would cause injustice to the accused (CPA 2009 s8, s165).

"...unless the required amendment would cause injustice to the accused."
Kwenye kesi kama hii ya ugaidi, tena inayoonekana kuwa ya kutengenezwa maksudi, hicho kipengele cha mwisho hapo juu ndipo penye ugumu.

 

[comte]

"...unless the required amendment would cause injustice to the accused."
Kwenye kesi kama hii ya ugaidi, tena inayoonekana kuwa ya kutengenezwa maksudi, hicho kipengele cha mwisho hapo juu ndipo penye ugumu.

Mbowe kasingiziwa ua hajasingiziwa- hiyo ndiyo maana kesi ipo. Sasa nyinyi endeleeni kusema tu kasingiziwa aje ale mvua muone.

 

[DATAZ]

Huwa sipati picha mwaka 2025 ungefikaje na ungekuwaje chini ya mungu mtu fulani.

 

[JokaKuu]

Ni vigumu sana kumkataa Jaji kwenye kesi yako, halafu ukategemea kuwa huyo jaji mwingine atakayeichukua atakuwa tofauti sana na uliyemkataa; wana fraternity yao.

Wakati fatma karume akiwa wakili akueambie kuwa alimkataa hakimu Mingi ni nini kilichofuatia kwa mahakimu wengine waliochukua kesi yake akiwemo Mahai, Lyamuya na wengine waliiendesha vipi. Wakaili nzuri huwa hashambulii credibility ya mahakimu, hilo hufanywa na mawakili wa harakati tu ambao kwa kiasi kikubwa interests zao kubwa ni kumtangaza mteja kwenye umma badala ya kumnasua mteja kutoka kwenye kibano cha sheria.

..mahakimu / majaji wanatakiwa wawe huru.

..unapodai mahakimu/majaji wana " fratenity", maana yake ni kwamba wanatoa hukumu bila kuzingatia haki.

..credibility ya mahakama inatakiwa kulindwa na kutetewa kwa uadilifu wa mahakimu na majaji, sio kwa kunyamazisha,na kukomoa, wananchi wanaowakataa majiju na mahakimu wasio na maadili.

 

[comte]

Huwa sipati picha mwaka 2025 ungefikaje na ungekuwaje chini ya mungu mtu fulani.

Ila tunashukuru alituachia sheria hii ya POTA ambayo inashughulika na gaidi Mbowe
PART II
PROHIBITION FOR ACTS OF TERRORISM (ss 4-11)





4. Definition and prohibition for terrorism act

(1) No person in the United Republic and no citizen of Tanzania outside the United Republic shall commit terrorist act and a person who does an act constituting terrorism, commits an offence.

(2) A person commits terrorist act if, with terrorist intention, does an act or omission which–



(a) may seriously damage a country or an international organization; or



(b) is intended or can reasonably be regarded as having been intended to–



(i) seriously intimidate a population;



(ii) unduly compel a Government or perform or abstain from performing any act;



(iii) seriously destabilise or destroy the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of country or an international organization; or



(iv) otherwise influence such Government, or international organization; or



(c) involves or causes, as the case may be–



(i) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;



(ii) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;



(iii) kidnapping of a person.

(3) An act shall also constitute terrorism within the scope of this Act if it is an act or threat of action which–



(a) involves serious bodily harm to a person;



(b) involves serious damage to property;



(c) endangers a person's life;



(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public;



(e) involves the use of firearms or explosives;



(f) involves releasing into the environment or any part of it or distributing or exposing the public or any part of it to–



(i) any dangerous, hazardous, radioactive or harmful substance;



(ii) any toxic chemical;



(iii) any microbial or other biological agent or toxin;



(g) is designed or intended to disrupt any computer system or the provision of services directly related to communications infrastructure, banking or financial services, utilities, transportation or other essential infrastructure;



(h) is designed or intended to disrupt the provision of essential emergency services such as police, civil defence or medical services;



(i) involves prejudice to national security or public safety, and is intended, or by its nature and context, may reasonably be regarded as being intended to–



(i) intimidate the public or a section of the public;



(ii) compel the Government or an international organization to do, or refrain from doing, any act, and is made for the purpose of advancing or supporting act which constitutes terrorism within the meaning of this Act.

(4) An act which–



(a) disrupts any services;



(b) is committed in pursuance of a protest, demonstration or stoppage of work,

shall be deemed not to be a terrorist act within the meaning of this section, so long and so long only as the act is not intended to result in any harm referred to in paragraphs, (a), (b), (c), or (d) of subsection (3).

(5) In this Act, unless the context requires, otherwise, any reference to "terrorist act" shall include any act referred to in sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.





5. Commission of offence of terrorist meeting

A person commits an offence who–



(a) arranges, manages or assist in arranging or managing or participates in a meeting or an act knowingly that it is concerned with an act of terrorism;



(b) provides logistics, equipment or facilities for a meeting or an act knowingly that it is concerned with an act of terrorism; or

(c) attends meeting knowingly that it supports a prescribed organization or to further the objectives of proscribed organization.





6. Offence of proscribed organization for commission of terrorist act

(1) Where two or more persons associate for the purpose of, or where an organization engages in any act for the purpose of–



(a) participating, or collaborating, in an act of terrorism;



(b) promoting, encouraging or exhorting others to commit an act of terrorism; or



(c) setting up or pursuing acts of terrorism,





(2) A person who belongs, or professes to belong, to a proscribed organization commits an offence.

(3) It shall be a defence for a person charged under subsection (2) to prove that the organization in respect of which he is charged had not been declared a proscribed organization at the time the person charged became a member or began to profess to be a member of that organization and that he has not taken part in the activities of that organization at any time after it had been declared to be a proscribed organization.





7. Rendering support to terrorism

(1) A person commits an offence who, in any manner or form–



(a) solicits support for, or tenders support in relation to, an act of terrorism, or



(b) solicits support for, or tenders support to, a proscribed organization.

(2) "Support" as used in subsection (1), means and includes–



(a) instigation to the cause of terrorism;



(b) offering of material assistance, weapons including biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, explosives, training, transportation, false documentation or identification;



(c) offering of or provision of moral assistance, including invitation to adhere to a proscribed organization;



(d) the provision of, or making available such financial or other related services to a terrorist, group or entity which is concerned with terrorist act;



(e) dealing directly or indirectly, in any property that is owned or controlled by or on behalf of any terrorist or any entity owned or controlled by any terrorist, including funds derived or generated from property owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by any terrorist or any entity owned or controlled by any terrorist; or



(f) entering into or facilitating, directly or indirectly, any financial transaction related to a dealing in property referred to in paragraph (e).





8. Harbouring terrorists

A person who harbours, conceals, or causes to be harboured or concealed, any person whom he knew to have committed or to have been convicted of, an act of terrorism, or against whom he knew that a terrorists warrant of arrest or imprisonment in relation to an act of terrorism had been issued, commits an offence.





9. Possession of unauthorized article, information, etc.

(1) A person shall commit an offence under this section who is in possession of any code, password, sketch, plan, model, note or other document, article or information which relates to or is used in a protected place or anything in that place, in contravention of this Act or the Protected Places and Areas Act *, or which has been entrusted to that person in confidence by any person holding office, or he had access to office from or which he has obtained or to which that person had access owing to the position or office held by him or as a person who is or was party to a contract with the Government.

 

[KalamuTena]

Mbowe kasingiziwa ua hajasingiziwa- hiyo ndiyo maana kesi ipo. Sasa nyinyi endeleeni kusema tu kasingiziwa aje ale mvua muone.

Unatoka kwenye majadiliano ya kutumia akili ubarudi kule kule jalalani ulikozoea kunyanyuka na kusambaza takataka humu JF.