Je, wajua Muswada Sheria ya Uchaguzi wa Rais, Wabunge na Madiwani 2023 ni batili? Ni mvinyo wa zamani, kwenye chupa mpya? Why ubatili huu?

Pascal Mayalla

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Posts
53,857
Reaction score
121,995
Wanabodi,

Kama kawa, leo nimepata fursa kuwaletea makala elimishi ya uchambuzi wangu wa muswada huu wa Sheria ya Uchaguzi wa Rais, Wabunge na Madiwani wa mwaka 2023, kwa swali Je Wajua Muswada Sheria ya Uchaguzi wa Rais, Wabunge na Madiwani 2023 ni Batili? Je, muswada huu ni mvinyo ule ule wa zamani, kwenye chupa mpya?. Muswada huu una nini kipya? Nini kilichobadilika tofauti na zamani?. Huu ni ubatili mtupu, ila ndani ya ubatili huu pia kuna baadhi ya mambo ni mambo mazuri!

Naomba nianze bandiko hili kwa utambulisho
Mwandishi ni mwandishi wa habari na mtangazaji wa kujitegemea kwa kujitolea na Wakili wa kujitegemea, ambaye japo ni mhitimu wa LL.B (Hons) ya UDSM, yeye sio wakili msomi, kwasababu haendi mahakamani, huyu ni wakili mtangazaji na muelimishaji umma kuhusu katiba, sheria na haki, kupitia makala za "Kwa Maslahi ya Taifa" zinazotoka humu JF, baadhi ya magazeti na kipindi cha TV na oline


Nimeanza na utambulisho huo, kwasababu kitendo cha wanasheria manguli, wabobezi na wabobevu, wa serikali wametunga muswada, wamejiridhisha uko ok ndio maana wakauwasilisha Bungeni, ambako nako kuna mabingwa wa sheria, wabobezi na wabobevu nao wakaoona uko sawa na ndio maana wakaruhusu uwasilishwe Bungeni na umeisha somwa kwa mara ya kwanza, halafu akaibuka mtu tuu kuukosoa kwa kuwaambia watu muswada huu ni batili!, lazima watu watajiuliza huyu ni nani?, hivyo huu ni uthibitisho kuwa Tanzania tuna wanasheria wa ajabu sana!. Jambo limeishatamkwa na Mahakama Kuu kuwa ni batili, serikali yetu sikivu inawezaje tena kutuletea ubatili huo huo kwenye hii sheria mpya? Hii sio mara ya kwanza kwa serikali yetu kututungia sheria batili, na niliwahi kuuliza Katiba Yetu Ina Matobo: Serikali Ikikosea, Inashitakika. Je, Bunge na Mahakama Zinapowakosea Watanzania Kama Makosa Haya Tunawashitaki Wapi?, hivyo zinapokea fursa za kubadili sheria, tuzibe kwanza paa letu, tuzibe matobo ili tuwe salama.

Jee inakuwaje madudu haya yakafanywa na wanasheria wetu?. Jibu ni moja tuu, sheria ni fani bahari, eneo ngumu kuliko yote kwenye sheria ni eneo la kutafsiri sheria, kwa Tanzania mamlaka pekee ya kutafsiri sheria ni Mahakama Kuu ya Tanzania, ila naomba kusema wazi hata Mahakama zetu zimekosea kutafsiri baadhi ya sheria zinazokwenda kinyume cha katiba. Ijue Katiba kwa Jicho la Mtunga Katiba: Mtunga Katiba alimaanisha nini aliposema "Katiba ni Sheria Mama"? Ni kweli Katiba ni Sheria Mama?

Ubatili wa muswada huu, sio ubatili mwingine wowote, zaidi ya ubatili ule ule ninaoupigia kelele humu jukwaani kila uchao, wa serikali yetu kutunga muswada wenye vipengele batili vinavyokwenda kinyume cha katiba ya JMT na Bunge letu Tukufu kuupokea huo muswada batili na ubatili wake na waheshimiwa wabunge wetu kujadili kutunga sheria batili kama mazuzu!
Ubatili huu nimeuzungumza hapa
Kwa vile Mkuu wa nchi ni rais wa nchi, hivyo likitokea tatizo lolote, analaumiwa mkuu wa nchi, na madudu yote hayo yalitokea kabla Rais Samia hajaingia madarakani, hivyo nimemjengea indemnity Rais Samia asilaumiwe kwa madudu haya Madudu ya ajabu ya ubatili wa Katiba yetu, mabadiliko "fake" ya sheria na Tume ya Uchaguzi, Rais Samia asilaumiwe kwasababu yeye sio mwanasheria!.

Kwa maoni yangu, dhulma kuu ya kwanza na ya msingi ni haki ya kupiga kura na haki ya kupigiwa kura, haki hii iyotolewa na katiba ya JMT ya mwaka 1977, ikaja kuporwa kwa sheria batili ya uchaguzi, Sheria ya Taifa ya Uchaguzi Sura ya 343 ya mwaka 1985 na Sheria ya Uchaguzi ya Serikali za Mitaa Sura ya 292 ya Mwaka 1979.

Mchungaji Mtikila akapinga sheria hiyo mahakani, baada ya Mahakama Kuu ya Tanzania kukibatilisha kifungu hicho batili, kwa kwenda kinyume cha katiba, serikali yetu ikafanya jambo moja kubwa la ajabu sana, au kitu cha ajabu sana!, ikapeleka bungeni muswada wa mabadiliko ya katiba kwa hati ya dharura, ikakichomekea kipengele batili ndani ya katiba ya JMT ya mwaka 1977, hivyo ubatili huo ukachomekewa ndani ya katiba!. Kwanini tutunge sheria mpya ya uchaguzi yenye ubatili ule ule?. Kwanini tutunge sheria mpya yenye dhulma ile ile ya haki kwa Watanzania?!.

Rais Samia baada ya kuingia madarakani, tumemlilia sana kuhusu ubatili huu
Kwenye mada hii pia ninaainisha kwa mukhtaasari, sura zote 10 za sheria hii, ili kuwaelimisha elimu ya uraia, sheria na haki ili tuitumie kikamilifu hii miezi 3 ya kutoa maoni na mapendekezo ya maboresho ya sheria hii.

Muswada huu unatunga Sheria ya Uchaguzi wa Rais,Wabunge na Madiwani ya mwaka, 2023. Kwa ujumla, Sheria hii inaunganisha Sheria ya Taifa ya Uchaguzi, Sura ya 343 na Sheria ya Uchaguzi ya Serikali za Mitaa, Sura ya 292. Hivyo sasa masharti ya uchaguzi wa Rais na Wabunge na Madiwani ni sheria moja na kutekelezwa na mamlaka moja ambayo ni Tume Huru ya Taifa ya Uchaguzi. Hapa ninapendekeza chaguzi zote nchini, uchaguzi wa Rais na Wabunge, Madiwani na Serikali za Mitaa, ufanyike siku moja na kusimamiwa na Tume moja Huru ya Taifa ya Uchaguzi. Hili ni jambo jema!.

Muswada huu umegawanyika katika Sura Kumi.
Uchambuzi wangu wa sura kwa sura na maoni yangu
Karibu
Hitimisho
Maadam sheria batili hii imeisha somwa kwa mara ya kwanza, nashauri tutoe maoni yetu, pili hoja hizi zizingatiwe
Hivyo Bunge la February lije na mabadiliko madogo ya katiba kwa hati ya dharura, tuondoe kwanza ubatili huu ndani ya katiba yetu na sheria zetu ndipo tusome kwa mara ya pili muswada huu!.

Hayamambo ya serikali yetu kututungia ubatili, na kulipelekea Bunge letu likaubariki ubatili huu kuwa sheria, tutaendelea nayo hadi
lini? Watanzania tutaendelea kusubiri mpaka lini Bunge likitunga Sheria batili na kuuchomekea ubatili huo ndani ya Katiba yetu? Tufanye nini?
na nikasema Watanzania ni maneno maneno na kulialia, Vitendo 0. Katiba ni maneno tu! Je, 2023 tuendeleze maneno matupu na kulialia au tubadilike tufanye kitu?

Hivyo mambo haya yakiendelea, kiukweli kabisa we'll be left with no option but to do something! (ambacho naomba nisikitaje)!.

Mungu ibariki Tanzania

Paskali
 
Bila machafuko ama mapinduzi ya kijeshi, hakuna uwezekano wa kupatikana kwa mabadaliko ya kweli. Kinachoendelea hapo ni kiini macho na kutengeneza utapeli ili kuendelea kupata wapiga kura wengi vituoni. Sioni watu wengi wanaojitambua kuendelea kushiriki hizi chaguzi za kihayawani.
 
Sasa serikali isisubiri kusukumwa kukazia hukumu hii hapa chini kabla ya 2025 ili wagombea huru na wale wa kupitia vyama vya siasa waweze kuchaguliwa na kupita kwa haki

WAKURUGENZI WA HALMASHAURI KUSIMAMIA UCHAGUZI MKUU

13 June 2023
Arusha, Tanzania

Application 011/2020 - Bob Chacha Wangwe and Legal and Human Rights Centre vs United Republic of Tanzania​


II. SUBJECT OF THE APPLICATION
A. Facts of the Matter
3. The Applicants challenge the provisions of the National Elections Act and they
claim that the Respondent State, by enacting and implementing the impugned
provisions, violated numerous rights including the right to equality before the law ; the citizen’s right to participate freely in the government of his country,
either directly or through freely chosen representative, the right to vote and be
elected at genuine periodic election and the right to equal access to public.

B. Alleged violations
4. The Applicants allege that the Respondent State has violated fundamental rights
guaranteed in article(s) 1, 13 (1), 21 (1) and (3); 25 (2) & 26; 21 (1) & 21 (2). 74(14) of the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (hereinafterreferred to as “the UDHR), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the ICCPR) and the Constitution of the United
Republic of Tanzania, respectively.

JUDGEMENT:

The Applicants alleged that the Respondent State had violated their right to participate in the government of their country contrary to Article 13(1) of the Charter and also their right to equality before the law and to equal protection of the law contrary to Article 3 of the Charter.

The Applicants submitted that section 6(1) of the NEA violated the Charter because the Director of Elections is appointed by the President who is the Chairperson of the ruling party and also among the contestants in elections. This manner of appointing the Director of Elections, the Applicants contended, raised questions of impartiality and independence of the
Electoral Commission.

The Applicants also submitted that section 6(1) “lacks the criteria for
the appointment of the Director of Elections and thus, makes it wide, broad and vague, and
subject to abuse
”.

The Court noted that at the core of the Applicants’ grievances, in respect of the appointment of the Director of Elections, was the question of the independence and impartiality of the office.

In line with its jurisprudence, the Court pointed out that States have latitude in terms of configuring their electoral management bodies while bearing in mind the overriding responsibility of establishing an institution that is independent and impartial.

Having considered the Parties’ arguments, and given the various methods for constituting electoral management bodies in use in Africa, the Court held that there is no violation of Article
13(1) of the Charter by the mere reason that the Director of Elections is appointed by the
President. It also held that Article 13(1) of the Charter is not violated simply on the basis that the President makes the appointment of the Director of Elections following recommendation (s) by the Electoral Commission.

In respect of the Applicants’ allegation that section 6(1) of the NEA “lacks the criteria for the appointment of the Director of Elections and thus, makes it wide, broad and vague, and subject
to abuse”, the Court observed that, indeed, section 6(1) did not set out any qualifications that
an appointee for the position must possess in order to qualify for appointment.


The Court thus found it anomalous that the Respondent State’s laws contain no provisions
stipulating the qualifications that one must possess to be appointed a Director of Elections.

The Court held, therefore, that in relation to the head of the Electoral Commission’s secretariat, it behoved the Respondent State to appoint individuals of the highest calibre who can independently, impartially and transparently coordinate the management of the electoral process. However, without a clearly laid out qualifications scheme, the considerations that the
appointing authority may take into mind when appointing a Director of Elections were unclear.

The Court found that this exposed the process not only to uncertainty but also the possible consideration of irrelevant factors.

Given the violations of the Charter that the Court had established, it also found a violation of Article 1 of the Charter.

On reparations, the Court reiterated its established jurisprudence that for reparations to be granted, the Respondent State should, first, be internationally responsible for the wrongful act.

Second, causation should be established between the wrongful act and the alleged prejudice. Furthermore, and where it is granted, reparation should cover the full prejudice suffered.
Finally, the Applicant bears the onus to justify the claims made.

The Court having found that sections 6(1), 7(2) and 7(3) of the NEA, in part, violate Article 13(1) of the Charter, ordered the Respondent State to take all necessary constitutional and
legislative measures, within a reasonable time and without any undue delay, to ensure that these provisions are amended and aligned with the provisions of the Charter so as to eliminate
the violations of Article 13(1) of the Charter asestablished.

The Court also noted that the violations that it had established raised critical matters of public concern and specifically in relation to the management of electoral processes within the Respondent State. In the circumstances, the Court deemed it proper to make an order suo motu for publication of this Judgment.

The Court, therefore, ordered the Respondent State to publish this Judgment within a period of three (3) months from the date of notification, on the
websites of the Judiciary and the Ministry for Constitutional and Legal Affairs, and to ensure that the text of the Judgment remains accessible for at least one (1) year after the date of
publication.

On implementation of decisions, the Court reiterated that this is required as a matter of judicial
practice. The Court, therefore, ordered the Respondent State to submit to it within twelve (12)
months from the date of notification of this Judgment, a report on the status of implementation
of the decision set forth herein and thereafter, every six (6) months until the Court considered
that there has been full implementation thereof.
Each Party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Justice Rafaâ BEN ACHOUR issued a Dissenting Opinion.
Further Information
Further information about this case, including the full text of the decision of the African Court,
may be found on the website at: African Court Cases | Details of a case
For any other queries, please contact the Registry by email registrar@african-court.or

READ MORE :

Source : African Court Cases | Details of a case

The Respondent State argues that
“The right to participate in the conduct of business is not absolute, insofar
as it may be legitimately restricted by law”. Relying on Article 27(2) of the
Charter and the decision of the Court in Tanganyika Law Society and
Legal and Human Rights Centre, Reverend Christopher Mtikila v.
Tanzania, the Respondent State argues that “the restrictions on persons
eligible for appointment to the position of Director of Elections are
reasonable and justifiable. The appointment of a civil servant to the
position of Director of Elections is in the public interest, as it is easy to
verify his or her ethical, professional and academic background, since the
public service is governed by a well-established legal framework”.
5. The Respondent State’s reasoning found favour with the majority of the Court,
which found that
“Section 6(1) of the NEA is not in violation of the Charter insofar as it
restricts the appointment of the Director of Elections only to candidates
from the public service”.
2
6. It is this finding, and the reasoning behind it, that I disagree with. Indeed, I believe
that reserving the position of Director of Elections only to public servants openly
violates the principle of equality of all before the law.
3
It is exclusive and
discriminatory and cannot be justified on any objective basis.
2§ 93 of the Judgement.
3Principle proclaimed by Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December
1948: “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the
law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and
against any incitement to such discrimination”, and reiterated in Article 26 of the International Covenant.

The Court composed of: Blaise TCHIKAYA, Vice-President; Ben KIOKO, Rafaâ BEN
ACHOUR, Suzanne MENGUE, Tujilane R. CHIZUMILA, Chafika BENSAOULA, Stella
I. ANUKAM, Dumisa B. NTSEBEZA, Modibo SACKO, Dennis D ADJEI – Judges; and
Robert ENO, Registrar.
In accordance with Article 22 of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and
Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Protocol”) and Rule 9(2) of the Rules of Court (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”),1 Justice Imani D. ABOUD, President of the Court and a national of Tanzania, did not hear the Application.

In the Matter of:
Bob Chacha WANGWE and Legal and Human Rights Centre

Represented by:

i. Advocate Jebra KAMBOLE, Law Guards Advocates;

ii. Advocate Fulgence MASSAWE, Legal and Human Rights Centre; and

iii. Advocate Amani JOACHIM, Legal and Human Rights Centre.

Versus

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
Represented by:

i. Dr Boniface Nalija LUHENDE, Solicitor General, Office of the Solicitor General;

ii. Ms Sarah Duncan MWAIPOPO, Deputy Solicitor General, Office of the
Solicitor General;

iii. Mr Vincent E. A. TANGOH, Director, Civil Litigation, Office of the Solicitor
General;

iv. Ms Alesia A MBUYA, Assistant Director, Constitutional, Human Rights and
Election Petitions, Principal State Attorney, Office of the Solicitor General;

v. Daniel NYAKIHA, State Attorney, Office of the Solicitor General;

vi. Vivian METHOD, State Attorney, Office of the Solicitor General;

vii. Ms Caroline Kitana CHIPETA, Acting Director, Legal Affairs, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and East African Cooperation; and

viii. Ms Blandina KASAGAMA, Legal Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and East
African Cooperation.
 
Sometimes huwa napata tabu sana KUKUELEWA Kiongozi Wangu
 
Binafsi sina shaka na uchambuzi wako Msomi P M
Mkuu Nkundwe Sr , asante, ila mimi sio msomi, wasomi ni wale wabobezi na wabobevu, ila huku kwenye sheria, kiukweli tuna wasomi wabobezi na wabobevu wa ajabu sana!.

Ukijiunga na kozi ya sheria, somo la kwanza ni katiba. Tukafundishwa katiba ndio sheria mama, Ijue Katiba kwa Jicho la Mtunga Katiba: Mtunga Katiba alimaanisha nini aliposema "Katiba ni Sheria Mama"? Ni kweli Katiba ni Sheria Mama? sasa iweje hawa wanasheria wetu walipeleka Bungeni muswada wa sheria batili, Bunge letu Tukufu likaitunga hiyo sheria batili, Mahakama Kuu ikaibatilisha, serikali ikauchukua huo ubatili na kuupachika kiubatili ndani ya katiba yetu, Mahakama Kuu ikaubatilisha ubatili huo, serikali ikagoma mpaka sasa ubatili huo bado uko ndani ya katiba yetu, tumepata fursa ya kurekebisha sheria, serikali yetu hii hii inatuleteaje tena sheria batili yenye ubatili ule ule na watu tukanyamaza?.
P
 
No Watanzania ni watu pisi sana, usitegemee machafuko yoyote!, tayari Mama keshaonyesha nia njema na dhamira ya dhati kuwatendea haki Watanzania, tumpe ushirikiano wa kutosha ndio kama hivi!, tunamfungua macho Madudu ya ajabu ya ubatili wa Katiba yetu, mabadiliko "fake" ya sheria na Tume ya Uchaguzi, Rais Samia asilaumiwe kwasababu yeye sio mwanasheria!.
P
 
Mimi msimamo wangu uko pale pale. Sitakuwa tayari kupoteza muda wangu kushiriki hayo maigizo yanayoitwa uchaguzi chini ya serikali hii ya CCM.
Mkuu Tate Mkuu , nyinyi mnaomsusia ngedere shamba la mahindi ndio mnao sababisha kila mwaka tunavuna mabua!.
Numbers don't lie! Elections 2015 - Kuelekea 2015: CHADEMA, Don't Miss the Target, Adui Mkubwa sio CCM Bali ni ...

Watu wote wenye umri wa kupiga kura wasipo jiandikisha na kujitokeza kupiga kura, hawa ndio wanao ipa CCM ushindi kwasababu majina yao yataandikishwa na kura zao watapigiwa na zote zitaichagua CCM!.

P
 
Hakuna nia njema bali ni hadaa kwa content za huo mswaada. Mabadiliko ya kweli hayawezi kuletwa na wanaomini wana haki miliki ya kutawala nchi hii. Mabadiliko ya kweli yataletwa kwa machafuko ama mapinduzi ya kijeshi. Watu wajinga tu ndio watakuwa na muda wa kwenda kupiga kura eti wanachagua viongozi.
 
Sio kweli, watu wanapiga kura, ila matokeo yanayotangazwa sio halisi. Usitake kuhadaa watu ionekane watu hawajitokezi kupiga kura. Watu hawako tayari kuendelea kujitokeza kupiga kura zisizoheshimiwa.
 
Sio kweli, watu wanapiga kura, ila matokeo yanayotangazwa sio halisi. Usitake kuhadaa watu ionekane watu hawajitokezi kupiga kura. Watu hawako tayari kuendelea kujitokeza kupiga kura zisizoheshimiwa.
Nimesema na ninasema tena, numbers don't lie. Uchaguzi wa 2020 tulikuwa milioni 50 eligible voters ni milioni 30 wakaandikisha milioni 29!.

Do you see the game people play?. Eligible voters wote waliandikishwa!, wakapigiwa kura zao na zikahesabiwa!.

Hii iliwezekana kwasababu ya watu kama nyinyi ambao hamjiandikishi na mkijiandikisha hamjitokezi kupiga kura!.

Uchaguzi wa 2025 tutakuwa na eligible voters 40 million!. Kama wote watajitokeza kujiandikisha na wote wakajitokeza kupiga kura, na wakachagua viongozi wanaowataka, there will be no one wa kupigiwa kura and no game to play!.

Kususa kupiga kura ni kumsusia ngedere shamba la mahindi, utayavuna mabua!.
P
 
Uchambuzi murua kabisa.

Hapo kwenye ulazima wa wagombea kudhaminiwa na vyama vya siasa panatokana na hofu ya serikali na chama cha CCM kuwa vitashindwa kuwadhibiti wabunge wake kwa kuwatishia kuwavua uanachama na kupelekea kupoteza ubunge wao.

Kwahiyo utaona wazi kuwa malengo ya hicho kifungu haramu ni ya kidikteta yanye lengo la kudhoofisha uhuru wa viongozi wanaochaguliwa.

Demokrasia kwenye nchi masikini inahitaji uzalendo kwelikweli.

Nilipoisoma hiyo miswada kwa mara ya kwanza nilipatwa na mshituko, Unawezaje kujigamba kwa miaka miwili na maridhiano alafu unapeleka miswada ya sheria inayoendeleza yaleyale yanayolalamikiwa??

Lakini nikakumbuka kuwa mfumo dhalimu hauwezi kujirekebisha wenyewe, lazima kuwe ma external factors. Kama watanzania wanataka uhuru kamili basi siku moja wawe tayari kuupigania.
 
Mungu ataingilia kati kama Kwa yule.....
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…