SoC01 Jangwani Creek Illegal Human Settlement

[Filosofia ya Rorya]

Category: Environment​

Images by the courtesy of Google.

For quite long time now, Jangwani creek among others in Dar es Salaam region has turned to be critical political agenda of the nation whereby activists have capitalized it for popularity of their businesses’ missions and visions. The area more or less turning to be like the Gaza strip every time storm strikes and or after every general election where invaders of the valley have always rivalled with the government claiming possession of the area despite their inability to satisfactorily develop it to the standards of city master plan, as the result, inhabitation of this area and others of the like only burgeons ecological debt which is already overwhelming for the nations of the world.

Definitely there’s fatal technical default in the legal system for environmental act that provides for authority for demolition; which needs revision especially the timing for demolition. Straight away, one may deduce that enforcement of this act is politically done. This is valid for a reason which conjures up complex questions with Whys as follows:-

Why in every occasion, demolition is carried out immediately after the government is formed and sworn in?

Why demolition cannot be implemented during election campaigns?

Why environmental act is silent on the proper timing for demolition?

Why environmental act considers the areas to be unfit for human settlement only after elections are over, government formed and sworn in? Before elections and especially during campaigns the areas aren’t considered dangerous for human settlement?

Why can’t the victims believe that this act has political orientation in its enactment and enforcement?

Why can’t Wananchi desire revision of this act?

Why then can’t the act be revised and have it stipulate definite time for demolition to avoid squabbles?

Why the act doesn’t have human face for helpless victims after demolition? Any just legal system must have human face especially for matters that involve the public [majority]. If the legal system is meant for cruelty for those judged criminals [by court of competent jurisdiction] for breaching the law then there was no reason for the government to intervene for the rescue of the victims of floods along these valleys.

Why this act doesn’t reflect on the State vow to reduce poverty and address human settlement problem?

Why doesn’t the act incriminate utility/social amenities providers who do business in these areas which the act bars; as it does to evaders of the areas? The areas are seen electrified and plumber-ed for water supply.

Why doesn’t the act implicate local leaders and Municipal land officers for allowing human settlement in these prohibited areas by the environmental act?

Why during election campaigns the government involve dwellers of these prohibited areas? Contestants do campaigns by walking house to house in these areas which are considered illegal habitats.

Why in these areas you find ten cell leaders which mean that the areas are legally recognized as governance system is formed for them as well?

Why can’t the public believe that there is critical conflict of the law between environmental law, and those of hydro and power supply which don’t sanction supply to prohibited areas by the environmental law? There’s need to synchronize/harmonize these laws. Supply of these utilities to prohibited areas would have been valid if the areas were conserved by law.

Why demolition budget is only available immediately after the new government is formed and sworn in?

Why that budget doesn’t exist during election campaigns and even a period before elections?

Why carrying an operation which is non-contextual in the election manifesto?

Since after villagization operation, and again since the first general election under dicotyledonous political system, no election manifesto has ever stated with specificity that if its party is voted to State office, it should immediately carry massive demolition of illegal structures in the creeks. If demolition is neither covertly nor overtly stated in the manifesto how and why then it is made a priority number one in implementing manifesto? Why should the government rush into implementing an activity which isn’t an urgent priority neither is it appearing in the manifesto? How is this reducing poverty and address global concern for housing problem? Is demolition of structures a party policy or national law? Is demolition reflecting on the objectives of MKURABITA?

Vote for me.